00:19:39phantomcircuit:bought a cable modem
00:19:41phantomcircuit:no coax cable
02:59:48maaku:merged mining attack I hadn't considered : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=394388.0
03:01:42maaku:somone solo mining altcoin could double-count proof-of-work by merge mining the fraud chain against their solo blocks
03:06:32gmaxwell:maaku: namecoin ended up deploying a specific defense against this
03:06:42gmaxwell:that requires the namecoin chain to be at a particular position
03:09:49maaku:gmaxwell: i'm aware of that one - it protects against having multiple auxblock committments in the same coinbase
03:10:11maaku:but the twist here is namecoin merged mined against namecoin
03:10:45maaku:so the attacker has the choice of using the outer block or the inner block
03:11:06warren:maaku: wouldn't that only be an issue in practice if the value of NMC were much higher?
03:12:26maaku:warren: eh? it depends on the size of the double-spend you are trying to make
03:13:30Niko_B:Get some easy bitcoins all you need is a web browser http://t.co/RFLekya7Hc
03:13:37maaku:the fact that you can build up he public chain, while double-counting work towards a secret attack violates some security assumptions
03:14:13maaku:* maaku needs to learn how to use +o
03:14:13gmaxwell:maaku: oh I don't think you can mergemine namecoin against namecoin.
03:14:20warren:warren has kicked Niko_B from #bitcoin-wizards
03:15:07maaku:gmaxwell: yeah i'm not certain if it'd actually work.. but this wasn't something I'd previously thought about
03:15:09gmaxwell:maaku: if you can thats dumb and should be fixed, but its a purely academic attack right now since you'd have to forgo substantial bitcoin income.
03:15:15maaku:and it would have worked in the system I was designing
03:15:22maaku:it's easily fixed though
03:15:26gmaxwell:should be trivial to fix if so— just don't accept non-mergedmined blocks.
07:10:42gmaxwell:brisque: it could be made possible with some modest design changes.
07:15:00_ingsoc:_ingsoc (~ingsoc@unaffiliated/ingsoc/x-8595135) has quit (Quit: leaving)
07:16:15brisque:gmaxwell: that's interesting. for old blocks that would presumably get resource intensive though.
07:17:49gmaxwell:brisque: I would only expect nodes to retain the data structure as of the tip.
07:18:00gmaxwell:(to reorg they would keep undo data, like we do for blocks)
07:20:06brisque:yep, I follow.
07:20:37brisque:at this point I'm convinced that you've written a post on the forum about every topic conceivable, it's just buried in bitcointalk nonsense.
07:28:44CodeShark:yeah, agreed, brisque - it would be nice to organize all of gmaxwell's forum posts into a coherent reference :)
07:29:19CodeShark:I just don't have time nor focus to sift through all the forum crap
07:30:49brisque:CodeShark: I'd read that, maybe a coffee table book of failed altcoins too
07:33:50gmaxwell:I've actually considered hiring someone to do that.
07:34:00gmaxwell:(to go index everything I've written and make summaries)
07:35:31brisque:damn, I was getting excited for the coffee table book.
07:37:43brisque:gmaxwell: provided all of your 3000 posts aren't almost BIPs in length, I'd be happy to do that though if you wanted. they're usually quite interesting reads unto themselves.
07:39:46brisque:gmaxwell: I particularly enjoy that you used interrobangs in 2011.
07:54:40brisque:andytoshi: nothing important was said anyway, just me being impressed by gmax'wells crazy punctuation.