| 00:27:14 | reipr: | howdy gents |
| 00:30:50 | maaku: | Luke-Jr: chinese ;) |
| 00:31:37 | Luke-Jr: | Chinese, kanji, all looks the same |
| 00:31:52 | Luke-Jr: | my guess was Japanese since it's on my browser's language list (albeit AFTER English..) |
| 00:35:29 | reipr: | 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? |
| 00:36:00 | maaku: | reipr: it doesn't matter how the funds are held |
| 00:37:42 | reipr: | 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 |
| 00:38:21 | reipr: | How else can you verfy that the balance they claim to have exists? |
| 00:38:29 | sipa: | if all coins are held at a single address, the privacy is so bad that you don't really need a solvemncy proof |
| 00:38:49 | reipr: | right, thats why Im confused here. |
| 00:40:07 | gmaxwell: | reipr: you can't really run a service that uses only a single address. |
| 00:40:18 | gmaxwell: | since you can't tell which of multiple customers have paid you. |
| 00:40:36 | gmaxwell: | 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? |
| 00:41:07 | reipr: | Im a bit into the presentation that Peter Todd gave in 2013 |
| 00:41:26 | gmaxwell: | you probably want to read iwilcox's page. |
| 00:42:30 | reipr: | ok |
| 01:05:13 | reipr: | ok I see |
| 01:06:10 | petertodd: | 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 |
| 01:06:24 | reipr: | thanks |
| 01:42:40 | reipr: | wow |
| 01:45:57 | petertodd: | ‽ |
| 01:46:14 | reipr: | mind blown |
| 01:46:37 | petertodd: | lol, yeah, good proof-of-solvency is more subtle than it looks |
| 01:47:20 | reipr: | 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 :) |
| 01:47:36 | reipr: | Im not afraid to admit it |
| 01:47:39 | petertodd: | I can spare a few minutes |
| 01:47:45 | petertodd: | good to know what you don't know! |
| 01:47:58 | reipr: | k cool. Id rather get it right. I already know im not screwing anyone, they need to know it too |
| 02:41:13 | home_jg: | home_jg is now known as jgarzik |
| 02:57:20 | contrapumpkin: | contrapumpkin is now known as copumpkin |
| 05:03:23 | pigeons: | pigeons is now known as Guest85217 |
| 15:18:42 | rdymac: | rdymac has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 16:20:11 | reipr: | 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? |
| 16:20:36 | reipr: | I guess I can just flag it as confirmed to be safe, Im still interested in the answer though |
| 16:21:53 | sipa: | confirmations can always go up and down in reorganizations |
| 16:22:02 | sipa: | and skip numbers if they are larger than 1 block deep |
| 16:22:09 | sipa: | also, #bitcoin-dev please |
| 16:22:14 | reipr: | ok |
| 17:06:18 | fanquake: | fanquake has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 18:23:17 | Guest85217: | Guest85217 is now known as pigeons |
| 18:35:24 | Dizzle: | Dizzle is now known as Guest89005 |
| 18:36:26 | Guest89005: | Guest89005 is now known as Dizzle |
| 21:33:19 | Dizzle_: | Dizzle_ is now known as Dizzle |
| 23:22:21 | nsh: | 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 |
| 23:26:31 | muslamba: | muslamba is now known as nsh |