--- Day changed Wed Sep 26 2018
01:33 -!- puddinpop [~puddinpop@unaffiliated/puddinpop] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
02:29 -!- undeath [~undeath@hashcat/team/undeath] has joined #joinmarket     
03:12 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket     
03:44 -!- reallll [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket     
03:44 -!- reallll [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
03:47 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
03:58 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket     
05:05 -!- puddinpop [~puddinpop@unaffiliated/puddinpop] has joined #joinmarket     
07:02 < belcher> https://github.com/AdamISZ/CoinSwapCS/issues/52
07:02 < belcher> tl;dr When coinswapping, use coinjoin via Pay-to-EndPoint (P2EP)
07:02 < belcher> maybe obvious maybe not, i think the two technologies go together very well
07:05 < belcher> waxwing did you say recently that you're less enthusiastic about coinswap because of all the interaction thats needed?
07:08 < waxwing> well yes, kind of. i think in particular cross-block interactivity is an issue. interact, wait, then interact again later. that type of thing.
07:09 < belcher> ok     
07:11 < belcher> that is definitely an issue, like if some parties go offline during the wait then you lose all that privacy that you already paid miner fees for
07:13 < waxwing> i mean it's just a perspective, probably i got a bit too obsessed with it :)
07:14 < belcher> obsession is fine :) this stuff is important after all
07:15 < belcher> i can imagine in the high-fee future when someone pays a lot of fees to send bitcoins to a 2of2 multisig, they wait overnight so it gets confirmed... then they find the coinswap server went offline and doesnt seem to be coming back
07:16 < belcher> then they have to pay another big fee just to get their money back, and now its associated with coinswap, and they didnt get any privacy
07:16 < waxwing> yeah it doesn't seem to sit well with a completely opportunistic, completely decentralized/no identity model
07:16 < waxwing> whereas with coinjoin .. etc etc
07:17 < belcher> yes, i imagine you'd need some kind of identity to use coinswap, like locking up bitcoins in time-locked addresses
07:18 < belcher> another way i thought of earlier is that before your coinswap, the server has to send you some bitcoins via LN, to cover the cost of fees/privacy/risk
07:19 < belcher> or something like that, just generally using LN's offchain transactions to help somehow
07:21 < belcher> on the other hand, coinswap is off-chain and fungible with most other bitcoin transactions, so it would give a really big anonymity set per miner fee paid
07:21 < belcher> im still working on those ideas of amount correlation, and having a big anonymity set really really helps
07:22 < belcher> i havent been able to come up with a good way of analysing CoinjoinXT with the amount correlation stuff, so maybe thats good too, but it would still need much more blockchain space than coinswap
07:25 < waxwing> a single coinswap suffers from amt correlation badly though, right
07:26 < waxwing> my feeling about space usage of cjxt was that it's comparable with coinjoin done in rounds/tumbler etc but ofc just depends on how you do it, and measuring the effect .. sheesh. i think it can be efficient with the dual funding add-on, specifically in the amplification to on-chain sense.
07:28 < belcher> yes, so any good coinswap has to be able to create multi-tx coinswaps
07:33 < waxwing> connection probs, belcher , did you see my two messages starting "a single coinswap.."?
07:34 < belcher> i only saw one message with that prefix
07:34 < belcher> "<waxwing> a single coinswap suffers..." and "waxwing> my feeling about space..."
07:35 < waxwing> ok you got it, sorry when vpn mucks about everything goes a bit haywire here :)
07:47 < waxwing> belcher, dropped a note. i think it's a very significant observation, actually, thanks.
07:47 < waxwing> well probably when i look at it again tomorrow i'll totally change my mind, that's usually how it goes :)
07:47 < belcher> oh lol i only just realized that P2EP can help against amount correlation in coinswap
07:48 < belcher> because a blockchain observer wont be able to see the coinswap amount
07:49 < belcher> amount correlation is basically a solved problem as long as you can do multi-tx coinswap
07:50 < belcher> i know that from my (still unpublished) research on it
07:50 < belcher> (in theory still-unpublished means there could be errors in it, but it seems simple enough)
07:51 < waxwing> hmm, hang on that's interesting: remember my 'blinding amount' idea in coinswap? it's important to understand how this is different.
07:52 < waxwing> heh, it's funny, i remember at the coinjoin meet, i was telling people midweek 'well you can break amount correlation by having the payee contribute, but that's not really interesting because it requires interactivity ...'
07:52 < waxwing> lol     
07:56 < belcher> if you wanted to, you could say a coinswap server is merely a merchant... they accept bitcoin as payment in return for other bitcoins
07:56 < belcher> well that was always true for joinmarket makers too
07:56 < waxwing> yeah. i just had a fixed idea that when you make a payment, you don't involve interaction with who you're paying.
07:56 < waxwing> but .. you do, or at least, you can.
07:57 < waxwing> hence (via some other line of argument) everybody eventually decided that p2ep was the thing. etc.
07:58 < belcher> you always do i think, since at the very least you need one of the bitcoin addresses of the entity you're paying
07:58 < waxwing> interesting to consider that LN grew out of trying to elide that same point: no good to have to directly negotiate with recipient, but we can take one step back by having everyone "on-line" with *someone* else, just not necessarily the payer.
07:59 < belcher> yes     
07:59 < waxwing> i still think 'p2ep' should have been called 'payjoin'. captures it better really. although the 'ep' part does have its point.
09:58 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:02 -!- undeath [~undeath@hashcat/team/undeath] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.2]     
22:10 < Sentineo> waxwing: a minor finding ... In this error message: If this wallet is in the old json format you need to convert it using the conversion scriptat `scripts/convert_old_wallet.py`
22:10 < Sentineo> 'scriptat' should be 'script at'
23:33 -!- emzy [~quassel@unaffiliated/emzy] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]