| 01:10:12 | amiller: | whoa ralph merkle joining ethereum is weird |
| 01:13:03 | amiller: | https://twitter.com/ethereumcharles/status/463794004492951552 not that there's any more detail about it than this tweet |
| 01:27:16 | tacotime: | amiller: I half expect to hear that they've resurrected Turing and that he's joining up now, too. |
| 01:27:49 | amiller: | turns out he was a digitally autonomous corporation all along |
| 01:31:38 | tacotime: | hahaha |
| 03:01:14 | pigeons: | $ |
| 03:03:25 | petertodd: | also don't assume merkle actually knows much about cryptocurrencies |
| 03:04:00 | petertodd: | and for that matter, ethereum isn't an unreasonable idea |
| 03:20:22 | Luke-Jr: | I agree with petertodd on this: Ethereum isn't bad as a concept; it's just the way they're trying to monetise it, and make a scamcoin of it, that's the problem |
| 03:31:13 | ghtdak: | ghtdak has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 03:46:55 | phantomcircuit: | Luke-Jr, they keep pretending like it's guaranteed to work.. which is the issue |
| 06:29:22 | justanotheruser: | Is there a way to make tx with scripts like 2+2=? spendable only if you solve them (and prevent miners from getting the rewards? |
| 06:29:39 | justanotheruser: | In a future bitcoin of course |
| 06:30:11 | justanotheruser: | Maybe a zero knowledge proof or something |
| 06:35:35 | ebfull: | justanotheruser: afaik they're called SNARKs |
| 06:35:39 | ebfull: | http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/507 |
| 06:36:16 | justanotheruser: | ebfull: will read thanks |
| 06:36:57 | gmaxwell: | justanotheruser: sure, just set the solver in advance and require the solver to provide the solution and a signature. (meets the constraints you provided) |
| 06:37:19 | gmaxwell: | :) |
| 06:37:30 | gmaxwell: | (which is actually quite useful in many cases, though not all) |
| 06:37:58 | justanotheruser: | gmaxwell: wouldn't that open the network to an attack where users just keep pretending to solve, and not actually proving? |
| 06:40:10 | gmaxwell: | justanotheruser: not sure where our misunderstanding is... did you miss the "solution AND a signature"? |
| 06:40:36 | gmaxwell: | the miners will know the solution, but its useless to them because they cannot provide the signature. |
| 06:41:00 | justanotheruser: | gmaxwell: what do you mean set the solver in advance? |
| 06:42:09 | gmaxwell: | like I'm going to pay you if and only if you give me the answer to 2+2. Okay so I write a script where you must provide the answer to 2+2 and a signature with your key. (for more fun it should also have a timelocked refund path, but we'll ignore that for the moment) |
| 06:42:55 | justanotheruser: | gmaxwell: oh, I was referring to anyone can solve |
| 06:44:54 | gmaxwell: | then know, for the reason you understood— not without a zkp being verified by nodes. Though note, know in advance can still be functionally anyone can solve, you just need to have a process for someone offering to step up and claim it, it just requires interaction. |
| 06:47:01 | justanotheruser: | gmaxwell: is it possible without interaction |
| 06:51:28 | gmaxwell: | s/know/no/ |
| 11:03:28 | kdomanski_: | kdomanski_ is now known as kdomanski |
| 11:19:13 | stonecoldpat: | when referring to bitcoins, what is the preferred word among the community? bitcoins or coins? |
| 11:20:13 | sipa: | #bitcoin please |
| 11:20:34 | stonecoldpat: | kk |
| 12:12:50 | HM: | HM is now known as HM2 |
| 12:16:26 | fanquake: | fanquake has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 18:49:06 | wallet42: | wallet42 is now known as Guest6362 |
| 18:49:06 | wallet421: | wallet421 is now known as wallet42 |
| 19:10:05 | Eliel_: | Is there an analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the PoS approach Nxt has taken somewhere? |
| 19:11:13 | jgarzik: | there really needs to be a bitcoin-wizards FAQ |
| 19:11:40 | jgarzik: | this gets covered repeatedly in IRC, but fails to get captured in a blog post or whatever |
| 19:12:02 | sipa: | it suffers from the nothing at stake problem, no? |
| 19:12:28 | sipa: | if so, i just consider it fundamentally brokemn |
| 19:12:36 | hearn: | jgarzik: imo we need a technical FAQ, full stop. the bitcoin.org FAQ is just for end users |
| 19:18:12 | Eliel_: | that sounds like a good idea :) |
| 19:20:16 | Luke-Jr: | andytoshi has an incomplete altcoin FAQ |
| 19:20:49 | Luke-Jr: | https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Andytoshi/A_Treatise_on_Altcoins |
| 19:27:52 | waxwing: | Luke-Jr, thanks looks like an interesting read. treatise != faq though :) |
| 19:41:22 | Eliel_: | Luke-Jr: it doesn't actually discuss altcoins, though. It does make a good point on why it's dangerous to just start modifying the system though. |
| 19:42:44 | petertodd: | Eliel_: note that there isn't actually as much agreement as you might expect about how even bitcoin actually works; a FAQ would be a set of arguments, not "facts" per-se |
| 19:44:36 | petertodd: | Eliel_: secondly, things like PoS, while (probably) fundementally weak by bitcoin/cryptocurrency standards, have analogous constructs in non-cryptocurrency systems where they are considered good enough |
| 19:46:19 | andytoshi: | Eliel_: i have a short blurb an PoS at the end of https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf |
| 19:46:32 | andytoshi: | and someday alts.pdf will actually discuss altcoins :) |
| 23:48:17 | wallet42: | wallet42 is now known as Guest10432 |
| 23:48:17 | wallet421: | wallet421 is now known as wallet42 |