--- Log opened Thu May 28 00:00:33 2020
00:16 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.172.61.28] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
00:17 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@184.75.221.3] has joined #joinmarket
00:18 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@184.75.221.3] has quit [Client Quit]
00:28 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket
00:28 -!- jonatack [~jon@184.75.221.3] has joined #joinmarket
00:58 -!- jonatack [~jon@184.75.221.3] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
01:00 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.172.61.28] has joined #joinmarket
01:20 -!- asymptotically [~asymptoti@gateway/tor-sasl/asymptotically] has joined #joinmarket
01:30 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:30 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #joinmarket
01:38 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.172.61.28] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:38 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.172.61.28] has joined #joinmarket
02:37 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.172.61.28] has quit [Quit: jonatack_]
02:39 -!- nixbitcoin_ is now known as nixbitcoin
02:43 -!- jonatack [~jon@184.75.221.163] has joined #joinmarket
03:02 -!- Tabitha63Beer [~Tabitha63@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:03 -!- Gilda49West [~Gilda49We@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #joinmarket
03:07 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Hi guys, I was asking myself if you have some link/gist, or you can briefly tell me, about a itch of mine about the Joinmarket's CoinJoin graph.
03:07 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Since the protocol involves 2 different type of users, makers and takers, and that these 2 types have fairly different behaviour, how often do you think they merge? And how much merging do you think is needed to have a decent level of obfuscation?
03:07 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Trying to better explain my questions:
03:07 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Taker pays the fees and typical behaviour is a tumbler pattern, he will be taker for multiple CoinJoin in a fixed time window (let's say from 1 day to a week). The chances that he will be a maker in the same time window seems to me almost 0, right? Or, to better say, he would have to stop the tumbler, run the maker for some time hoping to
03:07 < HackRelay> find takers, and then start the tumbler again. It seems not something most people would do.
03:07 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Maker doesn't pay fees and typical behaviour is a series of maker CoinJoin. Here I think lays my biggest question, more specific that the one asked before. How often makers stop the yield generator to do a taker CoinJoin? How often makers merge with taker role? I'm trying to calculate some stats on that, using subset sum to find how many
03:07 < HackRelay> equal outputs and maker changes get spent as taker. I also looked at the old Waxwing's repository about
03:07 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Joinmarket's privacy, but it does not seem to cover this specific pattern.
03:08 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] My math is spaghetti, so I doubt to go far, but anyway was curious if you guys have some trail where to put me to find those answers.
03:08 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] My biggest concern is the possibility for an external observer to follow the equal outputs of the taker, since each of them will be the only equal output spent again as taker.
03:08 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] I'm curious about your thoughts on this also because one of the current PR is fidelity bonds; which to me seems to further reduce the likelihood of a maker performing taker CoinJoin. If fidelity bonds take over, makers could become more specialised, so to speak, and the accuracy of the pattern above could increase accordingly.
03:08 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] But maybe it's just babbling by me.
03:09 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] I really like your software guys, thanks for your attention. Regards
03:22 -!- midnight [~midnight@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
03:23 -!- midnight [~midnight@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #joinmarket
03:49 < waxwing> so, there's multiple facets to it. the essential point is mostly correct - imagine a single taker operating (whether with tumbler algo or any other) with no other takers in a fixed set of makers.
03:49 < waxwing> imagine both the taker and the makers never change their roles.
03:50 < waxwing> then a final "outpoint" that is not consumed in a later coinjoin is either (a) a taker output or (b) a maker output where the maker is not engaging in joinmarket but just moving funds.
03:50 < waxwing> there are several things breaking this simplistic model though, multiple takers, mixed roles, people moving funds out (so that's (b)).
03:51 < waxwing> you can take the 10k foot view though, it's always like that with an obfuscation technique - if there's one actor putting stuff into the pot, then one taking it out at the end, it doesn't matter what happens in the middle.
03:53 < belcher> theres some discussion here https://gist.github.com/chris-belcher/c8219fe6283b8f97116aeccaf1190c07#problem-single-joinmarket-coinjoins-arent-private-enough
03:53 < belcher> about 66% of the time its possible to tell which inputs belonged to taker and which to makers
03:53 < belcher> this is because joinmarket fees are on-chain and can be analyzed
03:53 < waxwing> the other detail in a chain of joins - the idea that an individual coinjoin output, which should be obfuscated by being an equal sized output, can be de-obfuscated by being part of a set of taker-ins in the next coinjoin, is partly ameliorated by co-spending of the same sized output by other makers (a tricky point)
03:53 < waxwing> and partly by mixing of roles, too
03:55 < waxwing> .. which is why i advocate mixing of roles. it can be very natural, if you use a Joinmarket wallet even somewhat actively, to do that.
03:58 < belcher> this is one thing coinswap solves, as the coinswap fees are no longer so easily analyzable
03:59 < waxwing> so easily? so you don't mean it's impossible, just it's trickier?
03:59 < waxwing> anyway i should not ask, i have other things i have to read right now, must not go down a rabbit hole :)
04:00 < belcher> the way fees work is alice sends (I+fee) to bob, and bob sends back I and earns fee
04:01 < belcher> and those txes are different txes on the blockchain, and they are in multiple parts
04:02 < waxwing> hmm sounds like what we were discussing on my CoinSwapCS project a couple years ago.
04:02 < belcher> yep
04:03 < waxwing> what i remember is it's a bit difficult if you have a small fee it doesn't avoid a watermark, and a large "blinding" amount doesn't quite work.
04:03 < waxwing> if you're using networks of swaps then sure it could be way better.
04:03 < belcher> multi-tx should solve that
04:03 < waxwing> right, makes sense i guess.
04:03 < belcher> so alice sends one tx for 15btc to bob, and bob sends back three txes of value 9btc, 4btc, 2btc, which adds to 15btc
04:03 < belcher> well in reality lets say 1.95btc instead of 2btc, and bob earned a 0.05btc fee
04:09 -!- Evanito [~Evanito@cpe-76-87-174-228.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:12 -!- jonatack [~jon@184.75.221.163] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
04:14 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.164.193] has joined #joinmarket
04:24 -!- vrana [~mvranic@gateway/tor-sasl/vrana] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:30 < waxwing> btw i deleted my twitter acct, got fed up of people tagging and messaging me on it, 2 years after my last tweet
04:30 < waxwing> i just kept the acct because it's easier to read that way, and it's something you want to be able to read regularly (since so much news is mostly there)
04:31 < waxwing> it did help me that 90% of bitcoin content there nowadays is so shit, lol
04:31 < belcher> yep twitter is downhill
04:33 < belcher> just tooted the coinswap design on mastadon, forgot to do it before
04:41 -!- vrana [~mvranic@gateway/tor-sasl/vrana] has joined #joinmarket
04:44 -!- slivera [~slivera@103.231.88.27] has joined #joinmarket
04:55 -!- Zenton [~user@unaffiliated/vicenteh] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
05:12 -!- rdymac [uid31665@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rhwtsrgaeummvzcp] has joined #joinmarket
05:16 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:17 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #joinmarket
05:18 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/AlexCato] DarkScience IRC network name: the change has been made in their irc server config. But the service needs a restart before it takes effect, and they dont know when that will happen
05:19 < belcher> great news
05:23 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.164.193] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:24 < waxwing> thanks yeah that's nice
05:33 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:34 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #joinmarket
05:39 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Thanks for the link, exactly what I was looking for. There are some things that are unclear to me.
05:40 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] 1) Why such a short wait time between CoinJoin? The default in the settings is 1hr + some randomization. And the posted link talks about 4hr as a long period. Isn't that a very short timeframe? Most likely the taker will be one of the first one at spending the equal output; By looking for Joinmarket's like CoinJoin on the blockchain for
05:40 < HackRelay> the month of April (from block 623837 to 628349) and using the euristics from Waxwing's repository (plus I
05:40 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] added that all the inputs have to be segwit and max one output can be different), a bit more than 600 CoinJoin show up. There could be false positive and there could be errors by me, so I doubt the number is absolutely correct but at least should give an idea. Considering an avg number of makers between 70-100, using a short waiting time
05:40 < HackRelay> like that wouldn't mean that almost always the first equal output spent is the taker? Makers could have to
05:40 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] wait a lot more on average before finding another taker to spend with.
05:41 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] 2) The 66% accuracy seems strange to me. There are notions that Wasabi change outputs are "easily" linkable due to subset sum, and there we are talking about an avg of 70 participants where every users behave the same.
05:41 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Math is not the name of my game, but I would lean towards a more pessimistic view; the 2016 article motivation for the 33% missing, as reported in the appendix, seems pretty weak to me. Although, unfortunately, I doubt to be able to do better myself.
05:42 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] 3) I definitely agree that switching role is a good solution, but do you think people do this often in practice? The idea that the yield generator is something you pop up and forget about for a couple months/a year goes against that. And fidelity bonds too, at least in my view, since average users most likely will never use fidelity bonds
05:42 < HackRelay> and this will further reduce the likelihood that a maker is just a random user in between his tumbling or
05:42 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] whatever.
05:43 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] I tend to agree that trying to reverse the CoinJoin chain backwards, so starting from an exit point, seems complicated and maybe unrealistic. But following a specific someone from an entry point, if he just spin up his tumbler for a couple of days and then spends, seems more achievable.
05:43 < belcher> switching roles isnt incentive-compatible as you say
05:44 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] The guy from bitcointalk 2016 sum it up pretty well with:
05:44 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] > I think the conclusion from this is that the very idea which distinguishes JM (operating a market with maker and taker roles), is also what exposes it to exploitation (the inherent role asymmetry can be exploited).
05:44 < waxwing> it certainly is incentive-compatible. i have more than one incentive :)
05:45 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Sorry if I kinda bloat this channel with my questions.
05:45 < waxwing> also, it *could* be incentive compatible even if i never wanted to spend my coins, because it would improve the privacy of all utxos involved, including mine.
05:45 < belcher> right but i mean hodlers who only want to make money wont be a taker with their coins
05:45 < belcher> waxwing theres a free rider problem there, only you pay the miner fees but everyone else benefits
05:45 < belcher> PulpCattel thats ok, its on-topic
05:46 < waxwing> this is some homo-economicus nonsense imo :)
05:46 < waxwing> by which i just mean, it's an oversimplification too far
05:46 < belcher> probably is
05:47 < belcher> like you could probably also expect people who have a lot of coins might sometimes spend them as well
05:47 < belcher> PulpCattel did you see that entire gist proposing the off-chain fees
05:47 < belcher> as this problem can be fixed if joinmarket fees were off-chain
05:47 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] yeah, I briefly looked at it, but I was more curious about the current implementation
05:48 < belcher> yes the current implementation does have this flaw
05:48 < waxwing> > The idea that the yield generator is something you pop up and forget about for a couple months/a year goes against that. <-- but why? what stops people just toggling yg off, spending coins, then toggling it back on?
05:49 -!- k3tan [~pi@unaffiliated/k3tan] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:49 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] IDK, maybe they do, but I think the frequency in which they do is order of magnitude lower from a taker? Makes sense?
05:49 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] than a taker*
05:50 < waxwing> my point is only that given 1 taker-only and 50 taker-makers, even if the latter only do non-maker-joins occasionally, it's enough to make deductions hard, not to mention the other few points i made about why it's very hard.
05:50 < waxwing> and to reemphasise my earlier point, there's a vast gulf of difference between analysing one taker in isolation with 50 makers, versus a scenario where there were lots of active takers.
05:51 < waxwing> the former scenario kind of screws up every obfuscation technique. i'm not denying joinmarket has a unique additional problem/issue with this, just saying there's a danger in oversimplifying the analysis.
05:51 < belcher> also theres the point about equal-inputs... if a 9-party coinjoin happened that means 9 UTXOs with exactly the same size, and more than one of them gets used later in the same coinjoin then it also gums up this analysis
05:53 -!- k3tan [~pi@unaffiliated/k3tan] has joined #joinmarket
05:55 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] IDK, without stats I feel nude, I'm really curious to see if this merging of multiple takers/makers happens in practice, or if instead we have a scenario where every taker tumbler sequence is distinguishable on its own.
05:56 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] what do you think about timing? Why 1hr average seems enough to you guys?
05:56 < belcher> its discussed a little bit here https://gist.github.com/chris-belcher/7e92810f07328fdfdef2ce444aad0968 but ultimately it was kind of guesswork
06:03 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.164.193] has joined #joinmarket
06:08 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.164.193] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:11 -!- jonatack [~jon@184.75.223.195] has joined #joinmarket
06:13 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:13 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #joinmarket
06:28 < waxwing> i do make the mistake of often forgetting the computational aspect. even 15 numbers has 1 billion different partitions (Bell(15) > 10^9)
06:29 < waxwing> it's definitely a "worst case bad" kind of thing, i.e. you can avoid completely exhaustive search, but i'm always surprised when researchers/coders actually report doing it, it always ends up being kinda hard
06:33 -!- slivera [~slivera@103.231.88.27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:34 < waxwing> like imagine 9 change outs with 15 inputs (hardly unusual), that's 21K output partitions you have to compare with 1 billion input partitions, which if done naively clearly isn't possible. the question is how practical is it, if not naive.
06:34 < waxwing> istr the cashshuffle write up went into this in some detail.
06:34 < waxwing> i always tend to rather avoid this line of thinking but it clearly does matter to some extent or other.
06:35 < belcher> it probably depends a lot on the change and input sizes, if the coinjoin amount is 1btc and just one of the inputs/change is 200btc then that one is easy to exclude
06:35 < belcher> if all the inputs are close to around 1btc then probably more computation is needed
06:35 < waxwing> yes, my intuition would be it would only hit computation limits fairly rarely - but i'd also expect you'd need to code this *very* smartly to avoid blowups.
06:36 < waxwing> and even if it's like say 1/10 times that the computation is not feasible, that's already kind of a big deal.
06:36 < belcher> so perhaps computational difficulty can save us... but ultimately on-chain fees do leak this information
06:36 < belcher> also this analysis would have to be done for every single coinjoin, not just only one
06:38 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:40 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has joined #joinmarket
06:44 -!- jonatack [~jon@184.75.223.195] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
06:47 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:55 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has joined #joinmarket
07:09 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] You know math infinitely better than me, so I trust you when you say that it's not a naive attack (seems also logical). But I like to think that when an incentive exists (and incentives against Joinmarket privacy surely exists), if it's doable, someone will do it. I'm definitely a pessimist.
07:09 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] I mean, to push this to extreme, if this kind of attack is really unfeasible even for relatively small numbers, then change outputs from CoinJoin big as Wasabi would have privacy by themselves in some sense, without even the need for equal outputs. Which I would consider very optimistic.
07:10 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] But I agree that in general is probably a messy business for the attacker and not a free for all attack.
07:12 < belcher> well it is a problem, its one benefit of a coinswap system as mentioned, unfortunately that doesnt exist yet so joinmarket is the best we've got (or possibly wasabi/samourai but they have their own issues)
07:12 < belcher> fixing it is one benefit*
07:16 < belcher> note that in 2014-15ish before joinmarket became active we didnt even have any practical coinjoin, so even this is an improvement
07:16 < belcher> its normal that tech will go through iterations as people better understand it and develop it
07:25 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Oh yeah, I agree with that, I'm using Joinmarket since a while, and it's indeed the only one that really grants you control of the CoinJoin you are doing and doing that allows to remove the toxic change from the equation.
07:31 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:32 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #joinmarket
07:36 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #joinmarket
07:36 < waxwing> right; note that is a taker-specific privilege
07:44 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Yeah mostly, but not necessarily right? I could use the change also as maker, I still consider this a way of control the CoinJoin I'm doing. I don't have to fill a denomination in either case.
07:44 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] Biggest problem with Wasabi, and maybe they will be able to solve it, is that if I pay someone with a mixed output, there's no way for me to CoinJoin this output again without merging it with another one, creating a potential never ending cycle.
07:45 < waxwing> oh hmm maybe, not sure what you mean. i was just saying the obvious, that the taker can do a sweep without change.
07:46 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] simplest example is, I have 0.1 mixed output. Pay 0.05, now I have 0.05 change that I won't ever be able to mix again in Wasabi without merging it with at least other 0.05
07:47 < belcher> yes, fixed denomination coinjoins always have that problem
07:47 < belcher> all this is aiming to improve fungibility, but divisibility of money is also a very important property
07:48 < HackRelay> [hackint-irc/PulpCattel] While in Joinmarket I could even use the 0.05 for a yield generator. Or I could simply sweep it of course.
07:49 < waxwing> tbh i think this gets overstated. yes it's not possible to permanently avoid linking already-mixed coins with future coins, without ridiculous levels of fragmentation. but that's inevitable in bitcoin. you can't always just spend one utxo, so linking is a thing. you just manage it.
07:50 < waxwing> fixed denominations represent a limitation, and a pretty serious one. but this idea that people have that they need to have this perfect delinking effect is overboard i think. the "don't use equal out coinjoin vals with other coins from the account it originated" is already a big step up.
07:51 < waxwing> that's the thing we have, i think it's good enough. you can also select with coin control of course, but again, there are limits.
07:51 < waxwing> you just can't isolate every utxo.
07:52 < belcher> my coinswap plan has a scheme for co-spending two or more UTXOs without providing evidence of common ownership
07:52 < belcher> also payjoin could perhaps add doubt to any co-spending if it was more commonly done
07:53 < waxwing> not just perhaps, i'd say it's very substantial.
07:53 < belcher> agreed
07:53 < waxwing> we already have it so maybe it's used a lot :)
07:53 < belcher> true
08:17 -!- sosthene [~sosthene@gateway/tor-sasl/sosthene] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:22 -!- sosthene [~sosthene@gateway/tor-sasl/sosthene] has joined #joinmarket
08:34 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #joinmarket
08:34 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:44 -!- Gilda49West [~Gilda49We@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:53 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:53 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #joinmarket
08:59 -!- puddinpop [~puddinpop@unaffiliated/puddinpop] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:18 -!- puddinpop [~puddinpop@unaffiliated/puddinpop] has joined #joinmarket
09:24 -!- openoms [~quassel@195.140.215.182] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
09:28 -!- openoms [~quassel@195.140.215.182] has joined #joinmarket
09:36 -!- Evanito [~Evanito@cpe-76-87-174-228.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #joinmarket
09:51 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:51 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #joinmarket
09:59 -!- Kadin87Haag [~Kadin87Ha@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #joinmarket
10:19 -!- dopplerg- [~dop@85.10.56.227] has joined #joinmarket
10:19 -!- dopplergange [~dop@192.111.134.213] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:22 -!- Kadin87Haag [~Kadin87Ha@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:23 -!- Sidney43Harvey [~Sidney43H@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #joinmarket
10:49 -!- Sidney43Harvey [~Sidney43H@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:53 -!- Aliyah75Harris [~Aliyah75H@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #joinmarket
12:17 -!- asymptotically [~asymptoti@gateway/tor-sasl/asymptotically] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:01 -!- Guest42619 is now known as stoner19
13:01 -!- stoner19 [~stoner19@2a02:c207:2022:1374::1] has quit [Changing host]
13:01 -!- stoner19 [~stoner19@unaffiliated/stoner19] has joined #joinmarket
13:03 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:53 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #joinmarket
14:04 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@unaffiliated/waxwing] has quit [Excess Flood]
14:04 -!- waxwing_ [~waxwing@193.29.57.116] has joined #joinmarket
14:18 -!- Aliyah75Harris [~Aliyah75H@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:20 -!- slivera [~slivera@103.231.88.27] has joined #joinmarket
16:08 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:09 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #joinmarket
17:11 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:12 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #joinmarket
17:17 -!- DSRelBot [~DSRelBot@p5de4a65e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:17 -!- HackRelay [~jmrelayha@p5de4a65e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
17:23 -!- viasil [~nobody@37.120.141.36] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:30 -!- HackRelay [~jmrelayha@p5de4a518.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #joinmarket
17:33 -!- DSRelBot [~DSRelBot@p5de4a518.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #joinmarket
17:39 -!- viasil [~nobody@37.120.141.36] has joined #joinmarket
18:50 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:06 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has joined #joinmarket
19:35 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:36 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has joined #joinmarket
19:41 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has quit [Excess Flood]
19:43 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has joined #joinmarket
19:54 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:02 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:02 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #joinmarket
20:06 -!- xochon [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/xochon] has joined #joinmarket
20:08 < xochon> has anyone built a web chart that shows the number of coinjoin txs occuring on the blockchain over time?
20:18 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has joined #joinmarket
20:41 -!- viasil [~nobody@37.120.141.36] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
20:46 -!- viasil_ [~nobody@37.120.141.36] has joined #joinmarket
21:43 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:44 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #joinmarket
21:51 -!- viasil_ [~nobody@37.120.141.36] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
21:56 -!- Damaris62Koepp [~Damaris62@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #joinmarket
21:56 -!- viasil [~nobody@37.120.141.36] has joined #joinmarket
22:19 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:33 -!- opal [~wowaname@volatile/founder/wowaname] has joined #joinmarket
23:00 -!- viasil [~nobody@37.120.141.36] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:06 -!- viasil [~nobody@37.120.141.36] has joined #joinmarket
--- Log closed Fri May 29 00:00:37 2020