--- Day changed Thu Sep 15 2016
00:15 -!- btcdrak [uid165369@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mpgyffmrauxeavgv] has joined #joinmarket
00:16 -!- btcdrak [uid165369@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mpgyffmrauxeavgv] has quit [Client Quit]
00:17 -!- btcdrak [uid165369@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-upchjwuqyoijfnjx] has joined #joinmarket
01:39 -!- fqtw__ is now known as fqtw
01:48 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #joinmarket
02:21 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x4db128b7.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket
02:23 -!- fqtw [~me@x4db128b7.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
03:19 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@48-79-11.connect.netcom.no] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:25 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has joined #joinmarket
04:43 < GithubBot5678> [joinmarket] AdamISZ closed pull request #606: Mixdepth orders improvement (develop...mixdepth-orders) https://git.io/v6xQ1
05:00 <@waxwing> Btw i have no idea whether scrub-log still works in the new version; if anyone could take a look at that (and fix up if necessary), that'd be helpful.
05:09 -!- Guest29379 is now known as starsoccer
05:11 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #joinmarket
05:26 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:53 -!- fqtw_ is now known as fqtw
05:55 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has joined #joinmarket
05:58 <@waxwing> got my first "verify_podle failed"; it could be someone running windows 0.2 version (although they'd have to have updated from develop at one particular point so perhaps not likely)
05:58 <@waxwing> sorry meant 0.2.0
06:41 -!- fqtw [~me@x4db128b7.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:42 -!- fqtw [~me@x4db128b7.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket
07:24 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has quit [Quit: https://QuantAtaraxia.pw/]
07:27 -!- grubles [~grbs@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
07:33 -!- grubles [~grbs@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #joinmarket
07:46 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has joined #joinmarket
08:13 -!- rdymac [uid31665@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wqkszzvhfjliusgt] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
08:45 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:58 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has joined #joinmarket
09:24 < fqtw> will joinmarket's problem with anonymity ever be fixed? or is it unfixable by design?
09:26 < adlai> fqtw: which problem?
09:27 < fqtw> the snoopability
09:27 < adlai> have you been following the 0.2.x release?
09:27 < fqtw> no
09:28 < adlai> it adds a cost to the attack
09:28 <@waxwing> fqtw: the information is kind of scattered in different places, but a good starting point might be this blog post: https://joinmarket.me/blog/blog/racing-against-snoopers-in-joinmarket-02/
09:28 < adlai> it's still possible to snoop, but it costs the snooper money, by forcing them to ddos the entire bitcoin network in order to snoop
09:29 <@waxwing> adlai: that's an interesting way to put it. true in a sense, but maybe oversells its strength somewhat :)
09:29 < adlai> ok, it doesn't cost them money, it only costs them bitcoins
09:29 < adlai> snooping is free for early adopters.
09:30 <@waxwing> btw not seen any snooping activity yet, but then again only a few days and a few transactions. will need to wait several weeks before deducing anything at all.
09:30 < adlai> it's still happening on the orderbook (as opposed to the oFFerbook...)
09:30 < fqtw> ok, and cost is the same for normal users who dont snoop?
09:30 <@waxwing> which brings me back to what i was musing on before this convo. trying to decide where is the best place to put efforts to reinstate or instate easier Taker usage.
09:30 <@waxwing> fqtw: well it isn't a direct cost; it's "using up" utxos that you have in your possession.
09:31 < adlai> fqtw: correct, as long as their network connectivity is reasonably non-shit. if they're timing out so often that they can't complete a join two times out of three, then it  might start costing them as well.
09:31 <@waxwing> so, if you are just doing a few transactions and then leaving, you hopefully won't notice any cost.
09:32 <@waxwing> yes that as well, if you had a super-bad connection it'd start blocking your usage (you can't retry endlessly)
09:33 -!- waxwing changed the topic of #joinmarket to: Welcome to JoinMarket: Increase Fungibility and Subsidise Your Fees | http://github.com/Joinmarket-Org/joinmarket | @joinmarket r/joinmarket | friends: #bitsquare #tlsnotary-chat | Live View: https://joinmarket.me/ob | Latest release 0.2.1 partially addressing #156, but earlier warning should still be noted: https://gist.github.com/chris-belcher/00255ecfe1bc4984fcf7c65e25aa8b4
09:34 < fqtw> i see
09:34 < fqtw> does it compare source address or IP?
09:35 <@waxwing> we've never attempted to prevent anonymous network connections, quite the opposite (i.e. people connect to the IRC channel over Tor)
09:36 < fqtw> i mean does it block the source address or the IP?
09:36 <@waxwing> does what block them?
09:36 <@waxwing> joinmarket is now in principle messaging-layer neutral, although only IRC servers are supported currently.
09:36 < fqtw> in case someone with a bad connection has to retry
09:37 < adlai> fqtw: it blocks their money
09:37 <@waxwing> what's being used up is utxos owned by the user, so they can re-connect with different IPs, makes no difference
09:37 < adlai> bitcoins have identity
09:37 < adlai> people don't
09:37 < fqtw> but could they transfer to a different wallet and use that?
09:38 <@waxwing> yes, you can always create new "usage tokens" (effectively) by spending your coins to a different utxo.
09:40 < adlai> fqtw: every transaction destroys coins and creates new ones. ''Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed''
09:40 <@waxwing> adlai: thoughts on this? i was setting up a web form for people to do create-unsigned-tx instances, it struck me that without taker auth utxo this is fairly easy (take utxos from wallet, then return signed tx to wallet). but they have to source commitments and i got stuck on this.
09:40 < fqtw> so if my connection is bad at times, i should go to a place where i have a better connection, to be sure?
09:41 < adlai> fqtw: you're not likely to have a bad enough connection for this to matter
09:41 < fqtw> ok
09:41 <@waxwing> one could run it as a charity, providing commitments even, but that could get abused. one could try to charge for it but that brings a raft of other problems.
09:41 < adlai> also, you won't ~lose~ money from trying to run joinmarket and failing because your coins have already been seen by all the makers; you will only pay the fee if you choose to try again.
09:41 <@waxwing> problem is there's no way to hook podle sourcing into other wallets, as it uses unique ECC operations.
09:42 < adlai> waxwing: ehhh i'm not too keen on webifying JM...
09:42 <@waxwing> well forget web then, just consider the idea of create-unsigned-tx as an interface to a wallet.
09:42 < adlai> for a while i thought it was the right way to spur adoption, but lately i think we have enough adoption for now, and need to focus on improving the existing mechanisms rather than getting people to use less-than-imperfect ones
09:43 <@waxwing> although i'm not convinced it should be forgotten, but that's kind of an orthogonal issue (presentation layer)
09:43 <@waxwing> adlai: well that's true up to a point, but i'm not convinced JM is very viable without ease-of-use interface.
09:43 < adlai> as i see it, the usecase for this is hardware wallets, and the kiss-est solution to the problem is to use a small hot wallet for commitments in such situations :-\
09:43 <@waxwing> the critical point in that discussion is this: viability is strongly proportional to usage volume IMO
09:44 <@waxwing> this is certainly true from the rate-limiting perspective as i tried to elucidate in that blog post
09:45 <@waxwing> how about this: wrap up a small distribution of code for commitment signing (podle signing). but to do that without it being just as much hassle as installation of joinmarket itself, not sure if it's possible.
09:48 < adlai> so, zooming way out, we now have three distinct roles in this market:
09:48 < adlai> 1) join coordinator / taker / buyer / etc
09:48 < adlai> 2) participant / maker / seller / investor / etc
09:48 <@waxwing> i guess if that's all i wanted to do it might be better to make a small C++ "plugin" to Bitcoin (Core) itself that just made libsecp256k1 calls. although that'd only be useful for Core users i guess.
09:49 <@waxwing> sorry,continue
09:49 < adlai> 3) rate-limit negotiator / podle generator
09:49 <@waxwing> yes these thoughts drifted through my brain too :)
09:49 < adlai> currently 1 & 3 are bundled together as "taker"
09:50 < adlai> but they can be distinct roles, for hardware wallets (and similar usecases)
09:50 <@waxwing> well 1 and 3 being linked is not arbitrary tho'; the cost is imposed only on 1
09:50 <@waxwing> and i also thought about a "market for commitments" but it hardly makes sense, there is no transfer of ownership, the seller can re-sell and/or use up. probably not viable eh.
09:51 <@waxwing> trust based it could be done, but it's a bit messy.
09:53 < adlai> a trusting maker could commitment for you in exchange for participating in your transactions
09:53 < adlai> the maker gets fresh potential commitments after each tx anyway
09:54 <@waxwing> hmm yeah that's a fun idea. bit complicated but interesting.
09:55 <@waxwing> anything involving trust relnships between counterparties gets a bit messy.
09:55 < adlai> it's probably simplest to leave the roles linked as they currently are until a hardware wallet user actually shows up wanting to use jM
09:56 <@waxwing> you make a good point focusing on HW wallet tho'. That is the most pressing case for needing a podle-separate-from-wallet right now.
09:56 < adlai> meanwhile i suspect the vast majority of cjvol is tumbler.py on *nix
09:57 <@waxwing> most likely, although i don't know that anyone knows for sure.
09:58 <@waxwing> fungibit's analysis suggested that 54% of cjouts could be unambiguously identified based on the "any cjout going to a new join is from a Maker", which is higher than i would have expected
09:58 <@waxwing> although i'd have to really delve into his code/analysis to be sure of what it means, that's a big time sink
10:01 < adlai> lol, he's got a lot of false positives there, sitting in makers wallets waiting to participate in future joins
10:01 <@waxwing> did you look through it? i guess you mean: if he counts unused outs as "Taker" then that would of course be wrong.
10:01 < adlai> he needs to add another parameter to his function - how far back the reliable snooping window ~ends~
10:01 <@waxwing> but i don't know what he actually did. the code is there though.
10:01 < adlai> i'll take a closer look.
10:02 <@waxwing> cool. the code looks pretty good to me from a superficial scan through.
10:02  * adlai skimmed the forum thread couple days ago, nothing new idea-wise just a good execution
10:02 <@waxwing> yes, agreed, seems that way
10:07 <@waxwing> to be fair, a HW user can simply use add-utxo.py to add commitments from any other non-HW they have, so it's usable right now.
10:07 <@waxwing> i did a fair bit of testing like that already on the new version (not HW, but using external commitments to unsigned-tx)
10:37 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:41 -!- rdbell [~rdbell@206.169.79.136] has joined #joinmarket
10:56 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #joinmarket
11:15 -!- trustiee [~smuxi@204.187.100.19] has joined #joinmarket
11:16 < trustiee> Where can I find the dictionary of words for wallet phrases that are used by joinmarket 0.2?
11:18 < adlai> trustiee: joinmarket/old-mnemonic.py
11:24 < trustiee> ty
13:26 -!- trustiee [~smuxi@204.187.100.19] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
13:54 -!- ThisIsZenified [~ImCool@176.123.26.59] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:56 -!- ThisIsZenified [~ImCool@176.123.26.59] has joined #joinmarket
14:37 -!- trustiee [~smuxi@204.187.100.19] has joined #joinmarket
14:45 -!- puddinpop [~puddinpop@unaffiliated/puddinpop] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:45 -!- trustiee [~smuxi@204.187.100.19] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:46 -!- Lightsword [~Lightswor@2604:a880:1:20::1d3:9001] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:51 -!- Lightsword [~Lightswor@107.170.253.193] has joined #joinmarket
17:00 -!- rdbell [~rdbell@206.169.79.136] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
17:01 -!- rdbell [~rdbell@206.169.79.136] has joined #joinmarket
17:35 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:36 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@27-245-11.connect.netcom.no] has joined #joinmarket
19:10 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590d90dd.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket
19:14 -!- fqtw [~me@x4db128b7.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
19:26 -!- puddinpop [~puddinpop@unaffiliated/puddinpop] has joined #joinmarket
20:19 -!- ThisIsZenified [~ImCool@176.123.26.59] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
20:19 -!- ThisIsZenified [~ImCool@176.123.26.59] has joined #joinmarket
22:05 -!- trustiee [~smuxi@204.187.100.19] has joined #joinmarket
22:31 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
22:33 -!- trustiee [~smuxi@204.187.100.19] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:39 -!- trustiee [~smuxi@204.187.100.19] has joined #joinmarket
22:49 -!- trustiee [~smuxi@204.187.100.19] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:55 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590d90dd.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:55 -!- fqtw [~me@x590c39d0.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket
23:10 <@waxwing> i missed this before, can someone take a look at it? maybe it's rubbish but if someone else can look at it that'd be helpful https://www.reddit.com/r/joinmarket/comments/4x95cl/whats_up_with_joinmarket_activity_the_past_few/d6z19rv