--- Day changed Sat Nov 19 2016
04:14 < GithubBot5678> [joinmarket] AdamISZ pushed 1 new commit to develop: https://git.io/vXF0m
04:14 < GithubBot5678> joinmarket/develop c9aa523 Adam Gibson: bugfix: maxmixdepth must be at least -m value in sendpayment
04:15 <@waxwing> re that ^ : simple bugfix, didn't seem PR worthwhile, unlikely to be needing discussion, but please do check.
04:17 < belcher> looking now
04:17 < belcher> looks good to me
04:31 -!- DeathShadow--666 [~IDSE@S0106a84e3f595813.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
04:37 -!- DeathShadow--666 [~IDSE@S0106a84e3f595813.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #joinmarket     
04:45 -!- DeathShadow--666 [~IDSE@S0106a84e3f595813.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
04:59 <@waxwing> looking at 660
05:01 -!- DeathShadow--666 [~IDSE@S0106a84e3f595813.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #joinmarket     
05:03 < belcher> waxwing am i right in thinking sending pushtx to a maker you havent talked to before isn supported ?
05:03 < belcher> the tx_broadcast = random-maker
05:03 <@waxwing> yes, that was a whole that was never filled unfortunately
05:04 < belcher> if so im thinking of just removing it
05:04 <@waxwing> or hole even
05:04 < belcher> it doesnt do much more than random-peer or not-self
05:04 <@waxwing> yeah i should have removed it more explicitly, it was just that i never got round to figuring out how to make it safely work in the messagechannel setup
05:04 < belcher> sounds like a lot of effort for basically zero gain
05:04 <@waxwing> i think the status is it might work or it might not.
05:05 < belcher> right now im working on something that broadcasts txes through tor, which is a better way of doing it
05:05 <@waxwing> yeah i wasn't enthused about spending time on it for that reason (small gain). but no objection to it either, of course, it's a nice feature.
05:05 <@waxwing> ok, great
05:05 < belcher> that would be tx_broadcast = tor so im just looking at that bit of the code
05:06 <@waxwing> so i think 660 is caused by not having funds left, the to_cancel, to_announce gets set to [0],[] and then the orderlist is empty and it crashes.
05:06 <@waxwing> well, i'll just write it in the thread, no reason to duplicate here
05:07 < belcher> i posted something asking him to scrub-log.py
05:08 <@waxwing> i think there's a bug there anyway. writing it up as best i understand it.
05:11 <@waxwing> written
05:16 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] i'm using "random-maker" as my config for weeks now, that works
05:17 < JM-IRCRelay> [Guest6185] me too AlexCato
05:18 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] havent checked the logs what it does in detail (or whether thats even in the logs), but all my taker transactions used random-maker without any problems. TXs were created and broadcast.
05:18 < JM-IRCRelay> [Guest6185] btw thanks for your #659, good work. we need more stuff like that.
05:18 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] oh interesting
05:19 < JM-IRCRelay> [Guest6185] i get confused, random-maker is the one in the transaction, and random-peer is anyone? or the opposite?
05:19 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] i wont delete it then
05:19 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] the peer in random peer refers to coinjoin peer
05:19 < JM-IRCRelay> [Guest6185] yes iirc it can work, it's based on nicks_seen or something, the issue i think was that it was not guaranteed to work.
05:19 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] so if you do -N 5 theres 6 possible entities that might broadcast it
05:19 < JM-IRCRelay> [Guest6185] oh i am guest herre, sorry :)
05:20 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] yes you're right the names are not ideal, my fault
05:20 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] AlexCato as well as yieldgen do you also use the taker scripts a lot?
05:21 < JM-IRCRelay> [waxwing] i retract "me too", i meant using yg-randomizer, not using random-maker, sorry, not paying enough attention
05:21 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] usually only to check if my maker runs fine... but i guess i'm using it once every two weeks or so
05:21 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] tx_broadcast is only relevant for the taker
05:25 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] id like to talk to more taker especially tumbler users
05:25 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] people in this irc and github are most likely investor/holder types who run yieldgenerators, tumbler users are presumably too busy to hang around here
05:25 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] must admit, i've used tumbler zero times so far
05:26 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] iv used it once or twice on mainnet, as a test
05:26 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] though probably hundreds of times on regtest and testnet
05:31 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] btw, could you read my reddit pm? Think i've never before used pgp without email, so unsure if that blob could be decrypted on your end
05:32 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] reading
05:32 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] someone else hasnt replied yet so i didnt decrypt any messages
05:32 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] ah
05:32 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] for future reference, if you add a tab or 4 spaces before every line it will format better
05:33 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] oh, okay. Noted :)
05:33 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] ok read it :)
05:35 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] great, it worked then. thanks!
05:36 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] yeah i just had to add line breaks again
05:37 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] cyberguerilla has a massive amount of bots on it
05:37 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] too bad about the not-editing-joinmarket.cfg thing which means agora irc doesnt
05:39 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] uhm, whats that? agora is in the standard config now from what I can see
05:39 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] and few people change that i guess
05:40 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] but if joinmarket.cfg already exists it wont be changed
05:40 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] so people might have old joinmarket.cfg that only contains cyberguerilla
05:40 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] ah, thats right of course
05:41 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] well, next time cgan goes down but agora doesnt --> there's the nudge needed for makers to adjust
05:41 <@waxwing> yeah it's a detail but i'm not that bothered; it's probably good if we "populate" agora slowly
05:41  * waxwing advertises #650 again :)
05:46 <@waxwing> clustering around powers of 2 .. 2^6 in this channel, 2^8 in cgan pit .. 2^10 commits in develop :)
05:55 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] btw, kind of excited about rhavar's plan. I think it's the same guy sometimes posting on r/bitcoin when people claim high fees are not a problem, who can offer real world business insights. Running his casino hot wallet as joinmarket wallet would be an awesome use case where everyone wins
05:55 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] his customers probably dont get banned by coinbase, he offers nice liquidity and a real-world showcase of joinmarket's use
05:56 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] only downside is that fees for other makers will go down, but whatever. Would be awesome to see this work
05:56 <@waxwing> where is this written about?
05:56 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] https://www.reddit.com/r/joinmarket/comments/5dpk7s/running_a_yield_generator_on_a_hot_wallet/
05:57 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] let me try to find his post where he talks about his business
05:58 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] there we go: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/580zf0/actual_bitcoin_transaction_fees_costs/
05:59 < JM-IRCRelay> [belcher] we should get him to come to IRC
06:19 <@waxwing> any way to get xchat to pop up balloon messages only for channels on one irc server, or ideally only on certain channels?
06:19 <@waxwing> or should i just use a different interface that has that feature
06:43 < belcher> theres the right-click extra alerts
06:43 < belcher> i dont think it makes balloons though
06:45 <@waxwing> where's that?
06:46 < belcher> right click the actual channel
06:46 < belcher> then Extra Alerts
06:46 <@waxwing> got it, thanks
07:07 <@waxwing> someone type something please
07:08 < belcher> here i am
07:08 <@waxwing> ok taskbar thing doesn't seem to work
07:09 <@waxwing> again?
07:10 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] type
07:10 <@waxwing> ok it wobbles at least :) still, maybe another irc client can pop up messages
07:25 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] about #660: he uploaded logs now. The "no coins left" error is in the first few, because there really were no coins in it (the script exits right away). In a later one, 1btc is in mixdepth 0. I guess it's not confirmed yet. This time it only crashes once there was an !orderbook offer observed in chat
07:26 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] in an even later log, the coins seem to be confirmed and the YG running as expected. But just after the first join, things seem to go bad for some reason:
07:27 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] starting in this line https://github.com/RHavar/joinmarket/blob/master/logs/J57qqvTfxoEY8zyk.log#L273
07:28 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] seems to have lost all connectivity to cgan, but continues to join on agora
07:30 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] my stab in the dark would be: if he starts out with 1 UTXO in the whole wallet and the first cj happens, he will only have unconfirmed funds in the whole wallet, unable to offer any coins until the cj confirms
07:30 <@waxwing> the one you linked is fine, i think; quit is just keyboard interrupt
07:30 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] after that the problem is relieved, as he has 2 utxos to offer then
07:31 <@waxwing> yes that's what i was saying in the thread (the "use up whole amount" condition)
07:31 <@waxwing> i do believe there is a bug there, along the lines of what i wrote
07:32 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] i dont think the log is fine; check lines 274 until he actually does quit with the keyboard interrupt
07:33 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] the script just limps along with "[INFO ]  errored while trying to quit: error(9, 'Bad file descriptor')" for several hours
07:33 <@waxwing> yes sure but that can just be one IRC down
07:33 <@waxwing> he's still getting messages and also sending !hp2s right
07:34 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] yup, from agora. But cgan fails completelty
07:34 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] the log is from today. Was cgan down?
07:34 <@waxwing> he's also doing transactions
07:34 <@waxwing> right, we agree, one IRC is down. yes cgan is up right now.
07:34 <@waxwing> maybe he can't connect.
07:35 <@waxwing> perhaps he's a victim of the they-don't-allow-more-than-2-connections or whatever
07:35 <@waxwing> afk for a bit
07:35 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] from the later logs, the problems seem to have been gone away once he had a few utxos in his wallet. So I guess this error isnt a dealbreaker for now, just something new makers shouldnt get too confused about
07:55 -!- GAit [~GAit@unaffiliated/gait] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
08:22 -!- GAit [~GAit@unaffiliated/gait] has joined #joinmarket     
08:26 -!- Katie [bb90eef6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.187.144.238.246] has joined #joinmarket     
08:27 < Katie> If I want to make my yield generator more efficient, should i set `mix_levels` to 1 ?
08:28 < belcher> no dont do that
08:28 < belcher> what do you mean by more efficient 
08:28 < Katie> Be able to participate in more coinjoins
08:28 < belcher> perhaps lower your offered price?
08:29 < Katie> If I don't care about the privacy of my wallet at all? So i don't care about levels
08:29 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] well, the service you offer to *others* is privacy. If you reduce yours, you also reduce theirs.
08:29 < Katie> Like what's the disadvantage/advantage to changing the amount of mixing levels?
08:30 < belcher> you wont make much more money that way
08:30 < sturles> Will you make any more money that way?
08:31 -!- GAit [~GAit@unaffiliated/gait] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.0.1]     
08:31 -!- GAit [~GAit@unaffiliated/gait] has joined #joinmarket     
08:32 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] from the amount of joins i see on my yieldgen, less mixdepths would have zero effect. Most joins seem to be for amount lower than 1 btc. So if you have, for example, 5 btc in 2 depths or 5 btc in 5 wont make any noticable difference, even in the worst case scenarios
08:32 < sturles> Changing the price may have an effect, but not suree wether it will be positive or negative.  Higher price will earn more, but participate in fewer coinjoins.  Lower price will participate in more coinjoins (and lock up more funds waiting for confirmation), but earn less for each.
08:33 < Katie> Is there a rough estimate for how many coinjoins there are per day? 
08:33 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] but if you reduce the mixdepths and subsequently reduce the privacy offered to takers (which pay you for that, privacy): some might not use joinmarket any more. Long-term it's a bad bet for everyone
08:33 < belcher> it seems to change day to day, i noticed there were more during the price runup two weeks ago
08:33 < sturles> I usually get one to three every day by average.
08:33 < belcher> but then the other price runup since then didnt have much more coinjoins..
08:34 < belcher> i get between 5-30 per day
08:34 < Katie> but like what order of magnitude are we talking? 
08:34 < Katie> Also is there a way to create a wallet without the annoying encryption stuff? 
08:34 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] i usually see 1-10 a day, but i'm also more in the mid-range of fees
08:35 < Katie> So when i run a command i don't need to enter a password? 
08:35 < Katie> As i want to be able to script some commands
08:35 < Katie> and they interactively require a password
08:35 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] if you do that and your computer gets hacked, your coins are gone, katie.
08:35 < Katie> if my computer gets hacked, my coins are already gone
08:35 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] not necessarily, if they cant break the encryption
08:35 < belcher> interesting viewpoint, there is no such way
08:35 < belcher> unless maybe if you pipe
08:36 < belcher> cat my-password-file | python wallet-tool.py 
08:36 < Katie> Could you make it first try with an empty password, before asking? 
08:36 < belcher> for such a use case i guess there could be an option to make that happen
08:36 < sturles> python wallet-tool.py < my-password-file
08:36 < Katie> or maybe take the password as a command line argument would be fine for me
08:37 < Katie> I'm launching it from another program, so it's more annoying to pipe line a password than just < in bash
08:37 < Katie> definitely be easier if i could go  -p ''  or something
08:38 < belcher> yes those are good ideas
08:38 < belcher> i guess nobody has really scripted it before
08:39 < Katie> Also how secure do you think joinmarket is? Would you be confident with hundreds of bitcoin in it? 
08:40 < belcher> there are people with hundreds of bitcoin in it
08:40 < belcher> i think there has been one case of coins being lost, and one near-miss that i remember
08:40 < Katie> I'm trying to build effectively a web front end for joinmarket
08:40 < belcher> (not including loss because people didnt write down their recovery seed)
08:41 < Katie> Where you can deposit into it, and withdraw from it
08:41 < Katie> and it operates as a yield generator
08:41 < belcher> are you related to u/RHavar from reddit?
08:41 < belcher> that bitcoin casino
08:41 < Katie> No, i'm trying to make an actual web wallet
08:41 < Katie> Like a custodial web wallet
08:41 < belcher> right
08:42 < Katie> but you get interest by leaving money there
08:42 < Katie> (although it'll be very small)
08:42 < Katie> So lets say the wallet already has 99 BTC in it, you deposit 1 BTC
08:42 < Katie> you'll get a 1% stake of it
08:42 < Katie> (and thus 1% of the profits) 
08:42 < Katie> And you can withdraw at any time
08:42 < belcher> right so pooling of money
08:42 < belcher> although the return is likely to be negative when you take into account counterparty risk
08:43 < Katie> yeah, it'll just mainly be for convenience 
08:43 < Katie> So people don't need to operate their own software
08:43 < Katie> They deposit in, wait a day, withdraw
08:43 < Katie> Or if they are impatient, they can do a coinjoin withdrawal
08:45 < belcher> that is all possible but the counterparty risk is still an issue, the interest rate would have to be very small because you're competing with people who have no counterparty risk
08:45 < Katie> I'm not actually trying to make money or anything
08:45 < Katie> I just want to make a service that allows people to mix virtually free of charge
08:46 < Katie> Basically design something like bitmixer.io but virtually free
08:46 < belcher> right, so its a web page so it doesnt require installing anything
08:46 < Katie> yeah
08:47 < Katie> I'm even wondering, if I can mix peoples coins for free. They send me money. Once it confirms, i do a patientsendpayment to their destination address
08:47 < Katie> So if they send me 1 BTC, i can forward them on 1 BTC free of charge
08:48 < Katie> might not be the best privacy, but better than nothing
08:48 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] i dont think you'll gain anything by pooling the depositors money together. A 5 btc wallet will have a vastly higher ROI (percentage-wise) than a 500 btc wallet, because there's basically no big joins at all currently.
08:49 < belcher> for privacy theres the issue that your users might worry that your can still spy on them
08:49 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] so having a seperate yieldgen for every user would probably be better for them, ROI-wise
08:49 < Katie> more variance, and harder to setup
08:50 < belcher> if someone is happy to accept a third party holding their coins, iv written about a method here that works well https://gist.github.com/chris-belcher/00255ecfe1bc4984fcf7c65e25aa8b4b#worked-example-for-tumbler-replacement
08:50 < Katie> I only really want to make enough money that people don't need to worry about txfees
08:50 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] also i agree that the counterparty-risk is just too high compared to the potential gains. Lending BTCs on poloniex/bitfinex will be vastly superior to a joinmarket incorporated counterpartyrisk
08:50 < belcher> essentially you deposit and withdraw into large bitcoin websites, your anonymity set is everyone who uses that
08:50 < Katie> So that the service is "free" for people
08:50 < Katie> It's not like i expect people to leave the money there for a year, hoping to make a few dollars
08:51 < Katie> But right now, people often don't want to use bitmixer.io for instance, because of the psychological overhead of having to pay
08:51 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] hm. So if privacy for free is the goal, reducing the mixdepths again is a horrible idea?
08:52 < Katie> Well when i do sendpayment it's going to spend across mixdepths anyway, right?
08:52 < belcher> no it wont
08:53 < belcher> unless you send to yourself for some reason
08:53 < Katie> I mainly thought it would be simpler to admin, if i don't have money spread out everywhere
08:53 < Katie> What happens if I want to send 10 BTC, but no single mix depth contains 10 bitcoin?
08:53 < belcher> that is indeed an issue
08:54 < Katie> So that's another reason just having a single mix depth seems simpler to admin
08:55 < belcher> for the cost issue, people are always paying bid/ask spreads to get into and out of bitcoin, and they already pay miner fees, so bitcoin use has a cost already and im not sure this free service makes too much difference to them
08:56 < Katie> Well imagine if i offered a free bitcoin forwarding service. Send money to X, and I'll forward it free of charge to Y
08:56 < Katie> it's certainly kind of appealing, no? 
08:56 < Katie> other than the counter-party risk, it'd be pretty cool
08:56 < belcher> it might be yes, but theres the general rule that if something has value then its worth paying for, that theres very rarely a free lunch, so if something is free then there must be a catch somewhere
08:57 < belcher> like, why do you want to do this? are you trying to practice programming and learn more maybe?
08:57 < Katie> It's just something that I want, that doesn't currently exist
08:57 < Katie> and i'm not willing to pay bitmixer.io's fees for it
08:57 < Katie> well, i should say, it does exist
08:57 < belcher> but why do you want to provide it for others?
08:57 < Katie> but i'm not willing to pay for it
08:58 < Katie> Seems like fun to build
08:58 < belcher> since if you only want it yourself, you could run a yield generator that will mix your coins
08:58 < belcher> right ok, i agree programming is fun
08:58 < Katie> My only concern is just legal risk
08:58 -!- windsok [~windsok@45.63.59.8] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]     
08:59 < Katie> I'm not exactly sure how legal it would be to run something like that
08:59 < belcher> well you could always run it from a tor hidden service and nobody could do anything about it
09:00 < belcher> but in practice privacy is not considered illegal almost all the time
09:00 < Katie> Is it safe to run multiple patientsend's at the same time ?
09:00 < belcher> the illegal thing would be ransomware or money laundering or whatever it might be, not privacy
09:00 < belcher> hmm.. i dont know
09:00 < JM-IRCRelay> [AlexCato] patientsend doesnt work at this point in time
09:00 < belcher> yes that too
09:01 < belcher> if you ran more than one at a time, wouldnt they compete with each other?
09:01 < Katie> not if there was locking involved
09:01 < Katie> oh damn, that kind of kills what i was hoping to do
09:01 < belcher> but yes people might want to pay more than one person in a time period, so a nice update could be to have one patientsendpayment script that you give a list of addresses/amount to pay one after another
09:01 < Katie> like if each patient send took a file lock, so only one ran at a time
09:01 < Katie> and they each waited for the other to terminate before starting
09:02 < Katie> but i can build that myself
09:02 < Katie> but if patient send doesn't work, there goes my idea of sending money for free :(
09:03 < belcher> the free sending thing is kind of a bug right now anyway with how takers handle miner fees
09:04 < belcher> one day in the future when people are sharing transactions to save on miner fees, there'd probably be a way to share out the miner fees in a fair way
09:04 < belcher> e.g. after schnorr signatures
09:05 < Katie> so i guess it's not going to be fixed in the near term future?
09:06 < belcher> not for a while no, its not really a priority
09:06 < belcher> well, depends if miner fees get really high
09:07 < Katie> So what happens if i run patientsend now, it just will never work?
09:07 < belcher> yes     
09:07 < belcher> i actually planned to fix it soon since the underlying code is fixed and its not a big thing to fix
09:08 < Katie> If i offered a bitcoin, would you fix it? And add a command line option -p  to everything, to pass in a password?
09:09 < Katie> i think they're the two things i need :D
09:09 < belcher> yeah, a bitcoin sounds good
09:09 < Katie> address?
09:09 < belcher> we can use escrow if you like
09:09 < Katie> nah its fine
09:10 < belcher> okay then, sec
09:10 < belcher> i think a slightly better way might be to have an option of a non-encrypted wallet?
09:10 < Katie> yeah, i would prefer that
09:10 < belcher> then if its nonencrypted it simply doesnt ask for a password
09:57 -!- windsok [~windsok@45.63.59.8] has joined #joinmarket     
10:33 < belcher> gmaxwell or anyone who knows, are there still all those bitcoin sybils out there trying to get people to connect to them so they can learn the ip address of the transaction creator?
10:33 < belcher> havent heard much talk about them in a while but cant see any reason why they would've stopped
10:40 -!- owowo [ovovo@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-eajnccpblronwhvd] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]     
10:45 -!- owowo [ovovo@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-aoripgjsebtqnvfq] has joined #joinmarket     
10:45 -!- owowo [ovovo@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-aoripgjsebtqnvfq] has quit [Changing host]     
10:45 -!- owowo [ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #joinmarket     
10:45 -!- owowo [ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Changing host]     
10:45 -!- owowo [ovovo@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-aoripgjsebtqnvfq] has joined #joinmarket     
10:55 < fluffypony> belcher: pretty sure, yes - they've just gotten more sophisticated, and are either actually processing blocks / transactions or appearing to
10:55 < belcher> yeah i thought so
10:55 < fluffypony> I have some anecdotal evidence from people I've spoken to that use Chainalysis and others
10:55 < belcher> they were first noticed because they failed to do those things, occasionally breaking spv wallets 
10:56 < fluffypony> (ie. That they provide IP correlation in their data)
10:56 < fluffypony> Yeah I think they just started actually providing data to SPV clients, and reducing their operating cost by not relaying
11:09 < GithubBot5678> [joinmarket] chris-belcher opened pull request #662: Tor broadcast method (develop...tor-broadcast) https://git.io/vXF9l
11:12 -!- Katie [bb90eef6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.187.144.238.246] has quit [Quit: Page closed]     
11:26 <@waxwing> belcher: that looks really interesting, will read soon
11:28 <@waxwing> belcher: i already added code to allow passing in a password in read_wallet_file_data, see here: https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket/blob/master/joinmarket/wallet.py#L149 and here: https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket/blob/master/test/commontest.py#L32-L54
11:29 < belcher> ah     
11:30 <@waxwing> hardly a big deal really, i think only important in as much as it's already in master that that method can be called with a password
11:51 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #joinmarket     
13:33 <@waxwing> put a final comment on 660, there's a clear need for a small bugfix, but it should be very simple. the other logs look fine to me.
13:41 < gmaxwell> belcher: yes, they're still out there.
13:53 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-114-3.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
13:58 -!- btcdrak [uid165369@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ntifjroyqnztnevx] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
15:52 -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]     
15:55 -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #joinmarket     
15:56 -!- Tergi [4a4aed8d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.74.237.141] has joined #joinmarket     
15:56 -!- Tergi is now known as tergi     
16:17 < tergi> Hello, i am curious about funding my wallet for being a maker
16:17 < tergi> i have lots of outputs to feed into it, some i don't mind if they get merged since they all came from the same source. others i would rather not be merged with those.
16:18 < tergi> I could supply all these outputs to different inputs in level 0 of the joinmarket wallet, but after that point would they start merging within the joinmarket transactions?
16:20 < belcher> yes, you could import their private keys
16:25 < tergi> ok, so in that case any maker transactions that were to happen would just come off the old keys from my previous wallet?
16:26 < belcher> yeah
16:27 < belcher> might be a good idea to have one big utxo in there too, if you only have dust otherwise
16:28 < tergi> would it pose any problem if the yield generator were running and one of the keys were to get a new transaction? one of the keys might remain active for a bit.
16:30 < belcher> wait so you'd keep using the same keys in your old wallet? that wont work
16:30 < belcher> i read your question again, could you instead just make a bitcoin transaction from your old wallet to the joinmarket wallet
16:49 < tergi> OK. I think i could move all funds to joinmarket in about 3 different transactions. But do you need to restart the yield generator when new funds are put in?
16:51 < belcher> no you dont
16:51 < belcher> it will update next time it does sync_unspent()
16:51 < tergi> ok. thank you.
17:08 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-114-3.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #joinmarket     
19:18 -!- btcdrak [uid165369@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wncofpjjyyoizmfz] has joined #joinmarket     
20:06 -!- Pilate [~pilate@infoforcefeed/pilate] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in]     
20:44 -!- Pilate [~pilate@pilate.io] has joined #joinmarket     
20:44 -!- Pilate is now known as Guest95367     
20:52 -!- Rspigler [~Rspigler@69.12.80.147.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has joined #joinmarket     
20:58 -!- Guest95367 [~pilate@pilate.io] has quit [Changing host]     
20:58 -!- Guest95367 [~pilate@infoforcefeed/pilate] has joined #joinmarket     
20:58 -!- Guest95367 is now known as PIlate     
20:58 -!- PIlate is now known as Pilate     
21:00 -!- Pilate [~pilate@infoforcefeed/pilate] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in]     
21:15 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
21:49 < tergi> Is it typical for yeild generator to connect and then immediately disconnect from IRC every 30 seconds?
21:58 < tergi> I got it sorted out. Looks like it was trying to use a SOCKS connection
22:02 -!- Pilate [~pilate@pilate.io] has joined #joinmarket     
22:02 -!- Pilate is now known as Guest30367     
22:23 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@62.90-149-73.nextgentel.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
22:23 -!- Guest30367 [~pilate@pilate.io] has quit [Changing host]     
22:23 -!- Guest30367 [~pilate@infoforcefeed/pilate] has joined #joinmarket     
22:24 -!- Guest30367 is now known as Pilate     
22:24 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@62.90-149-73.nextgentel.com] has joined #joinmarket     
22:41 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@62.90-149-73.nextgentel.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
22:41 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@62.90-149-73.nextgentel.com] has joined #joinmarket     
22:50 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@62.90-149-73.nextgentel.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
22:51 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@62.90-149-73.nextgentel.com] has joined #joinmarket     
23:06 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@62.90-149-73.nextgentel.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
23:06 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@62.90-149-73.nextgentel.com] has joined #joinmarket