--- Day changed Fri Nov 15 2019 00:00 -!- davterra [~dulyNoded@195.242.213.120] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:01 -!- davterra [~dulyNoded@195.242.213.120] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 00:13 -!- kabaum [~kabaum@2001:9b1:efd:9b00::281] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 00:28 -!- b10c [~Thunderbi@muedsl-82-207-236-212.citykom.de] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 01:05 -!- b10c1 [~Thunderbi@2001:16b8:2ea3:4100:cc19:12c4:e532:216f] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 01:07 -!- b10c [~Thunderbi@muedsl-82-207-236-212.citykom.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 01:07 -!- b10c1 is now known as b10c 02:16 -!- yaslama [~yaslama@bzq-218-78-150.red.bezeqint.net] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 02:36 -!- tecnovert [~user@mail.tecnovert.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 03:36 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 03:47 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 03:58 -!- HighOnBtc [~Admin@86.121.55.235] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 04:07 -!- tecnovert [~user@64.34.219.27] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 04:36 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 04:44 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 04:51 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.234] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 04:52 -!- HighOnBtc [~Admin@86.121.55.235] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 05:42 -!- HighOnBtc [~Admin@86.121.55.235] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 06:08 -!- yaslama [~yaslama@bzq-218-78-150.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Quit: yaslama] 06:59 -!- evoskuil[m] [evoskuilma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-jxjnizqxjvmgltht] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 07:32 -!- jnewbery [~john@4.53.92.114] has quit [Quit: leaving] 07:42 -!- jnewbery [~john@4.53.92.114] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 08:38 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.234] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:43 -!- jonatack [~jon@54.76.13.109.rev.sfr.net] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 09:14 -!- b10c [~Thunderbi@2001:16b8:2ea3:4100:cc19:12c4:e532:216f] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 09:16 < waxwing> In "using a k of k script for every combination" (*script BIP, rationale 6), i note that each k of k is implemented with CHECKSIG, CHECKSIGVERIFY and not CHECKSIGADD; i can see that you don't need the counting mechanism that CHECKSIGADD has (because these are always k of k) but, is it just a choice? could you use *ADD anyway? is it just a bit less economical? 09:18 < sipa> waxwing: yeah you'd need to push a 0 at the beginning 09:19 < waxwing> also i didn't get why e.g. 2 of n is only more economical that way if n>= 6; say if n=5, then there are 5 choose 2, or 10 branches of 2 of 2 each, but wouldn't each of those 2 of 2 branches be better than a big script with 5 keys? hmm not sure how to count this. 09:19 -!- rottensox [~rottensox@unaffiliated/rottensox] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 09:20 < waxwing> oh .. well you would need 5 keys in the script the other way. 09:20 < sipa> waxwing: i did the math :) 09:21 < waxwing> :) 09:24 < waxwing> i guess it's interesting for people to observe that k of n policies are feasible now with huge n, as long as k is small. not sure it'll be obvious to people that that design window has opened up. 09:24 < waxwing> well i mean as if anything here is obvious ... 09:25 < sipa> personally i think most interesting theshold policies are k-of-n with k>n/2 09:54 -!- jonatack [~jon@54.76.13.109.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 10:05 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 10:19 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 10:23 < instagibbs_> if k is almost n it's also possible 10:23 < instagibbs_> :) 10:30 < instagibbs_> point made in the review slack: "Let ej = c[33+32j:65+32j]" can be confusing if you don't know python slicing 10:31 < instagibbs_> could seem 33 bytes rather than 32 10:31 < sipa> it's not python slicing! 10:31 < sipa> the [:] is actually defined in bip-schnorr ;) 10:32 < instagibbs_> hah! 10:32 < sipa> it just coincidentally matches python notation 10:33 < instagibbs_> ok worth a link :) thanks 10:35 -!- Guest61 [~textual@169.204.90.212.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 10:37 -!- HighOnBtc [~Admin@86.121.55.235] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 11:06 -!- Guest61 [~textual@169.204.90.212.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 11:11 < waxwing> instagibbs_, yeah the combinatorial symmetry, but: with 99 out of 100 you need 99 sigs, not 1, even though the combs are the same. 11:12 < waxwing> oh but: musig? 11:31 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 11:55 -!- davterra [~dulyNoded@195.242.213.120] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 11:56 <@aj> waxwing: yeah, just 100 leafs each with one 99-of-99 musig 11:56 -!- davterra [~dulyNoded@195.242.213.120] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 12:28 -!- Guest61 [~textual@2a02:1205:500f:2e90:41e7:337a:6b3f:bd41] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 12:53 < waxwing> gotcha so by symmetry we're ok at the high end, but only to the extent people are willing and able to do large musigs. 12:54 < waxwing> well i mean ignoring any 'native' threshold secret sharing shenanigans 12:56 -!- davterra [~dulyNoded@195.242.213.120] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 14:44 -!- tecnovert [~user@64.34.219.27] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:51 -!- tecnovert [~user@mail.tecnovert.net] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 14:55 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 15:27 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:38 -!- theStack [4d778105@77.119.129.5.wireless.dyn.drei.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 15:46 -!- Guest61 [~textual@2a02:1205:500f:2e90:41e7:337a:6b3f:bd41] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 15:52 -!- Guest61 [~textual@2a02:1205:500f:2e90:41e7:337a:6b3f:bd41] has joined ##taproot-bip-review 15:55 -!- Guest61 [~textual@2a02:1205:500f:2e90:41e7:337a:6b3f:bd41] has quit [Client Quit] 23:58 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Quit: jonatack]