00:27:14reipr:howdy gents
00:30:50maaku:Luke-Jr: chinese ;)
00:31:37Luke-Jr:Chinese, kanji, all looks the same
00:31:52Luke-Jr:my guess was Japanese since it's on my browser's language list (albeit AFTER English..)
00:35:29reipr:Does the Merkle-Sum tree proof of solvency only work if there is one wallet that holds all the funds, and all other funds are off chain?
00:36:00maaku:reipr: it doesn't matter how the funds are held
00:37:42reipr:I guess Im missing something. I thought that the top node would be the balance, plus the public wallet address (so people can verify the balance) signed with the private key of that wallet address
00:38:21reipr:How else can you verfy that the balance they claim to have exists?
00:38:29sipa:if all coins are held at a single address, the privacy is so bad that you don't really need a solvemncy proof
00:38:49reipr:right, thats why Im confused here.
00:40:07gmaxwell:reipr: you can't really run a service that uses only a single address.
00:40:18gmaxwell:since you can't tell which of multiple customers have paid you.
00:40:36gmaxwell:reipr: I'm having a hard time understanding the nature of your confusion. What page are you reading about this which has left you confused?
00:41:07reipr:Im a bit into the presentation that Peter Todd gave in 2013
00:41:26gmaxwell:you probably want to read iwilcox's page.
01:05:13reipr:ok I see
01:06:10petertodd:reipr: once you understand iwilcox's page see some more recent work I've done on the topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04404.html
01:46:14reipr:mind blown
01:46:37petertodd:lol, yeah, good proof-of-solvency is more subtle than it looks
01:47:20reipr:petertodd: you got a bit to pm with me about this? I want to provide proof of solvency / proof of assets to my users, but I think I need a little hand holding :)
01:47:36reipr:Im not afraid to admit it
01:47:39petertodd:I can spare a few minutes
01:47:45petertodd:good to know what you don't know!
01:47:58reipr:k cool. Id rather get it right. I already know im not screwing anyone, they need to know it too
02:41:13home_jg:home_jg is now known as jgarzik
02:57:20contrapumpkin:contrapumpkin is now known as copumpkin
05:03:23pigeons:pigeons is now known as Guest85217
15:18:42rdymac:rdymac has left #bitcoin-wizards
16:20:11reipr:In my -blocknotify script is it ok to check that previously strored transactions have the EXACT amount of confirmations I'm interested in? In other words. If I say if t.nconfirmations == TARGET_CONFIRMATIONS: ... Is there a chance that the transaction will still have the same amount of confirmations in the next block?
16:20:36reipr:I guess I can just flag it as confirmed to be safe, Im still interested in the answer though
16:21:53sipa:confirmations can always go up and down in reorganizations
16:22:02sipa:and skip numbers if they are larger than 1 block deep
16:22:09sipa:also, #bitcoin-dev please
17:06:18fanquake:fanquake has left #bitcoin-wizards
18:23:17Guest85217:Guest85217 is now known as pigeons
18:35:24Dizzle:Dizzle is now known as Guest89005
18:36:26Guest89005:Guest89005 is now known as Dizzle
21:33:19Dizzle_:Dizzle_ is now known as Dizzle
23:22:21nsh:nsh is now known as [off|
23:24:17[off|:[off| is now known as [arff]
23:26:15[arff]:[arff] is now known as muslamba
23:26:31muslamba:muslamba is now known as nsh