--- Day changed Mon Jul 22 2019
00:56 < felix34> zfk: I haven't checked the pastebin link but the "dropped nick" message you quoted is no big deal, it was discussed her earlier and happens when the counterparty drops out of IRC
00:58 < zfk> felix34, check the pastebin
01:24 -!- Everett35Schille [~Everett35@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has joined #joinmarket     
02:25 -!- a36 [52dd8d71@82.221.141.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
02:30 < kristapsk_> zfk, tx_broadcast = not-self isn't working currently, this crash has been fixed in https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/pull/365, see also https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/issues/368
02:33 < zfk> kristapsk_, ok. as a side note I had also gotten the same error when using tx_broadcast=random-peer. I actually just about to try using tx_broadcast=self just now. Hopefully I can get my first tumble completed now! :)
02:34 < kristapsk_> zfk, yes, I think tx_broadcast=self is the only one working atm
02:34 < zfk> ok     
02:34 < zfk> thank you
02:35 < kristapsk_> but it's best to configure your bitcoind/bitcoin-qt to use only Tor
02:36 -!- kristapsk_ is now known as kristapsk     
02:36 < zfk> aye, I think I've got it set that now
02:36 < zfk> onlynet=onion ?
02:36 < kristapsk> onlynet=onion will do the trick, you will connect only to onion hidden service peers
02:37 < kristapsk> proxy= will also work, if set to Tor, then it will connect to both onion and clearnet peers, but only through Tor
03:13 -!- Sentineo [~Undefined@unaffiliated/sentineo] has joined #joinmarket     
03:35 -!- Zenton [~user@unaffiliated/vicenteh] has joined #joinmarket     
04:32 < adlai> felix34: the only, and i repeat, only, way to get an honest answer to your "how often is in reasonable to ..." is to run a low-intensity sybil attack against the market, and notice how the frequency of participation of each participant under your control changes over the course of your actions.
04:33  * adlai naturally operates under the "satoshi quit his job from the secret service after having successfully defended the mint" axiom
04:33 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
04:44 < felix34> adlai: so by "sybil attack" you mean "yield generator"? :) also, re your status: https://archive.is/20130217100410/http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/newton.htm
04:46 < adlai> felix34: do you understand the economic model of joinmarket?
04:47 < adlai> it "tl;dr"s as: "you can pay other people to compromise their own financial privacy, iand you can receive payment to have your own financial privacy reduced"
04:47 -!- Everett35Schille [~Everett35@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
04:48 < felix34> adlai: you're going to have to be much more rigorous if you want to prove that statement
04:49 < adlai> ... and I honestly have no clue, felix34, what exactly you mean by "your status": my most recent /away message, my last published tweet (and to what account was that, exactly?), etc
04:49 < adlai> #."proof left as an exercise to the dear reader"
04:49 < felix34> adlai: I meant your satoshi secret service mint message
04:52 < zfk> the jm economy isnt a symbiotic relationship in terms of gaining privacy? arent makers getting "free" coinjoins?
04:55 < adlai> zfk: negative. makers get a discrete fraction of participation, takers get a a discrete fraction, and the IRC server gets a discrete fraction of metadata.
04:56 < adlai> ... and the internet service provider sighs and mutters something about Artificalized Net Neutrality
04:57 < adlai> felix34: ahaahaha yeah. ya ever heard how Newton ended his financial career?
04:57 < felix34> no     
05:00 < adlai> the version I've encountered is that, after becoming Director of His Majesty's Mint, the poor fellow attempted augury by showing an impressionable nobleman the striking similarities between the price charts of eastern opium and hybridized flower bulbs
05:01 < adlai> to which the king replied, "how intriguing. maybe the prices of these bulbs are correlated with the patternings of a specific strain of the hybrids?"
05:01 < adlai> Newton, ever the skeptic, mentioned that he'd already sold all the bulbs at the end of his initial research, so the king promptly commanded him to buy another batch and conduct another round of correlation measurements.
05:02  * adlai wonders whether any historians ever studied that incident beyond writing it off as the idiocy of overly wealthy europeans
05:08 < waxwing> felix34, the practical reality of yield generators is: you don't get as strong a privacy boost as takers, short term. over a long term you get a practically very substantial privacy boost, and you don't have to pay money for it. you pay in time, and in the security risk of a long running hot wallet.
05:09 < waxwing> the fact that technically each *individual* coinjoin is exposed to your counterparty (that is, the Taker, and only the Taker, knows the full set of mappings), is imo a mostly theoretical problem.
05:10 < waxwing> the other disadvantage of course is you have no control over the amounts of individual joins. but that's not much of a problem (the obvious realistic problem with it is if you want to coinjoin a ton of coins, you have to wait an awfully long time for mixing)
05:11 < felix34> adlai: don't see how that would cost newton his job. waxwing: ok, sure
05:12 < waxwing> it's important to see the context though because it helps explain why coinjoin fees are generally very low. that fee is only one small element in the matrix of tradeoffs.
05:13 < waxwing> it isn't always super-low. i think for very large coinjoin amounts you may find sometimes that that fee is *relatively* high(er), due to the difficulty in finding liquidity there.
05:14 < felix34> waxwing: total transaction costs are still quite high, running a tumble can easily cost > 0.005 BTC, and even a few CJs can be > 0.003 BTC
05:15 < waxwing> yup, and long term that problem will remain or get worse, at the very least until we have cross input signature aggregation.
05:15 < adlai> felix34: quite likely, his personal financial woes did not interfere with his professional appointment, although I'm unfamiliar with the 17th century crown's policies on such matters
05:16 < waxwing> re: the historical discussion :) i'm quite lost, pretty sure newton's financial "adventure" related to the south sea bubble, nothing to do with the tulip craze.
05:17 < adlai> one tactic for accelerating the overall usage, if you're absolutely intent on never triggering a coinjoin for any reason, is to produce software that makes coinjoins the default mode of transaction, and run the liquidity servers yourself, as was attempted by Rassah (iirc, one of the promoters of an old android wallet) and performed, as a honeypot, by another newer android wallet.
05:18 < adlai> possibly by multiple ones.
05:18  * adlai attempts to maintain "Oxford Rules" towards the offending applications, due to the reason for their mention.
05:20  * adlai wonders how long it'll take the trackers to field active interest in differential versionometry of joinmarket
05:20 < adlai> this is like differential cryptanalysis, for a different kind of information security :)
06:13 -!- technonerd [~techno@gateway/tor-sasl/technonerd] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
06:26 -!- technonerd [~techno@gateway/tor-sasl/technonerd] has joined #joinmarket     
07:14 < belcher> no, the coinjoin fees in joinmarket happen because one party is providing *liquidity* not privacy, makers earn fees because they wait around not because they gain or lose privacy
07:15 < belcher> btw adlai have a read of this if you havent already https://gist.github.com/chris-belcher/18ea0e6acdb885a2bfbdee43dcd6b5af/
07:15 < belcher> Design for improving JoinMarket's resistance to sybil attacks using fidelity bonds
07:15 < belcher> tl;dr send coins to a timelocked address to make sybil attacks more expensive
07:23 < belcher> id be interested to hear your thoughts
08:38 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
08:49 < waxwing> belcher, it's not 100% one thing. it's largely (probably overwhelmingly) liquidity, but there is a privacy differential too.
08:50 < waxwing> whether it's 90/10 or 99.9/0.1, who can say.
09:46 -!- reallll [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket     
09:49 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
09:52 -!- reallll is now known as belcher     
09:57 < belcher> indications that wasabi wallet is being sybil attacked https://twitter.com/6102bitcoin/status/1153341710312906753
09:58 < belcher> someone is heavily reusing addresses used in wasabi coinjoins
09:58 < belcher> wasabi's GUI makes this very difficult, so something odd is going on for sure
10:19 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has joined #joinmarket     
10:56 < technonerd> Samurai wallet was been nipping at Wasabi heels every since he left Twitter 
10:56 < MaxSan> all these conversations suck
10:57 < MaxSan> slightly confused considering ZL was done as a joint research project
11:20 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
12:44 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #joinmarket     
12:54 < waxwing> i'm avoiding reading the shitposting, but does anyone know, is this a substantive attack? just reusing your own adds in coinjoins is ofc annoying and hard to prevent, but does it really change that much? say there are 50 participants and 1 or 2 are doing this, do the others care that much?
12:55 < waxwing> or is it about honest participants feeding through multiple rounds? hmm i'd have to think about it quite a bit, but my intuition says there's nothing too dramatic there.
13:08 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:08 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #joinmarket     
13:14 < belcher> waxwing im leaning towards no its not substantive
13:25 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has joined #joinmarket     
13:53 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]     
14:05 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has joined #joinmarket     
14:21 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
15:10 -!- stoner19 [~stoner19@unaffiliated/stoner19] has quit [Quit: keep on keepin' on...]     
15:29 -!- beans12 [c6d3c2e2@198.211.194.226] has joined #joinmarket     
15:34 -!- beans12 [c6d3c2e2@198.211.194.226] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:46 < zfk> I guess its pretty obvious where one's coins went when their final destination is a 1-address, as opposed to a 3-address... 
15:47 < waxwing> zfk, if you do 1 coinjoin, basically yes - but only because of fee differentials in subsets of the inputs. and even that is not 100%.
15:47 < waxwing> but in the canonical use case of a tumbler run, it doesn't even help *that* much in trying to trace back to sources.
15:47 < waxwing> it's a tricky point, we've discussed it here before. clearly it can't be a bad idea to stick to '3' destinations wherever that's possible ...
15:50 < zfk> so if i understand you correctly, using a 1-address final destination doesnt necessarily completely break the privacy gained from a tumble (tumbler.py/multiple CJ's as opposed to sendpayment.py/one CJ)?
16:11 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:24 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #joinmarket     
17:00 -!- lukedashjr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #joinmarket     
17:03 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
17:04 -!- lukedashjr is now known as luke-jr     
17:17 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Excess Flood]     
17:17 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #joinmarket     
17:49 -!- CgRelayBot [~CgRelayBo@p5DE4A853.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #joinmarket     
17:50 -!- CgRelayBot_ [~CgRelayBo@p5DE4A838.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
17:52 -!- AgoraRelay [~jmrelayfn@p5DE4A838.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
18:05 -!- AgoraRelay [~jmrelayfn@p5DE4A853.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #joinmarket     
18:06 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has joined #joinmarket     
19:32 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
19:32 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #joinmarket     
20:04 -!- viasil [~viasil@95.174.67.204] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]     
20:06 -!- viasil [~viasil@95.174.67.204] has joined #joinmarket     
20:12 -!- viasil [~viasil@95.174.67.204] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
20:15 -!- viasil [~viasil@95.174.67.204] has joined #joinmarket     
20:21 -!- viasil [~viasil@95.174.67.204] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
20:28 -!- viasil [~viasil@95.174.67.204] has joined #joinmarket     
20:51 -!- MaxSan [~four@185.9.19.107] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
21:03 -!- stoner19 [~stoner19@vmi221374.contaboserver.net] has joined #joinmarket     
21:03 -!- stoner19 [~stoner19@vmi221374.contaboserver.net] has quit [Changing host]     
21:03 -!- stoner19 [~stoner19@unaffiliated/stoner19] has joined #joinmarket     
22:00 < technonerd> 89941633.3358443
22:01 < technonerd> average cj amount
22:03 < technonerd> 3700 sat is my average earned