| 04:05:20 | wyager: | wyager has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 04:17:37 | Guest59781: | Guest59781 is now known as DoctorBTC |
| 04:42:28 | DEA_Agent: | DEA_Agent is now known as Adohgg |
| 08:05:18 | wilhelm.freenode.net: | topic is: This channel is not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja |
| 08:05:18 | wilhelm.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: andy-logbot CoinMuncher Emcy adam3us RoboTeddy go1111111 p15 tromp_ LarsLarsen jchp_ bsm117532 rfreeman|afk wiretapp1d ebfull pen TheSeven Hunger- kmels Graftec roconnor__ mr_burdell CoinHeavy wizkid057 EasyAt tucenaber Logicwax Transisto iddo CryptOprah_ tromp Muis Grishnakh nuke1989 todays_tomorrow mkarrer Starduster Dr-G2 jaromil_ shesek fanquake skinnkavaj asoltys sl01 comboy_ Luke-Jr epscy digitalmagus7 hashtag jtimon atgreen dansmith_btc |
| 08:05:18 | wilhelm.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: AaronvanW drawingthesun spinza oujh tacotime emsid btc_ Graet altoz HaltingState bbrittain melvster [Derek] @ChanServ Apocalyptic lianj wumpus nkuttler gribble phedny so kinlo petertodd jcorgan optimator_ burcin LaptopZZ_ danneu amiller catcow a5m0 TD-Linux lechuga_ abc56889 weex Guest50253 helo Anduck pigeons smooth otoburb BrainOverfl0w gwillen kanzure ryan-c pi07r Starsoccer nanotube nickler_ Alanius K1773R BigBitz Guest47516 throughnothing |
| 08:05:18 | wilhelm.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: CodeShark eAndrius Eliel mmozeiko Meeh andytoshi berndj-blackout roasbeef Dyaheon rs0 harrow poggy DoctorBTC Fistful_of_coins Keefe samson_ gmaxwell zibbo azariah4 phantomcircuit Krellan maaku HM waxwing SomeoneWeird jgarzik crescend1 pajarillo zenojis Adohgg copumpkin nsh- postpre bobke Iriez jaekwon super3 mappum midnightmagic SDCDev [d__d] dgenr8 Sangheili zlinn_ [\\\] BlueMatt licnep michagogo coryfields nsh artifexd OneFixt sipa Taek42 |
| 08:05:18 | wilhelm.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: espes__ UukGoblin jbenet warren l_l_l_l_l |
| 09:08:47 | jaromil_: | jaromil_ is now known as jaromil |
| 09:33:05 | Aquent_: | Aquent_ is now known as Aquent |
| 11:15:38 | wallet42: | wallet42 is now known as Guest68104 |
| 11:15:38 | wallet421: | wallet421 is now known as wallet42 |
| 15:49:03 | coryfields: | coryfields is now known as cfields |
| 15:49:58 | cfields: | cfields is now known as coryfields |
| 16:39:39 | jgarzik: | gmaxwell, andytoshi: does 2-way pegging require any changes to bitcoin protocol? |
| 16:40:48 | tacotime: | gmaxwell: bcx is stating there's some kind of crypto problem in the ring signature algo for BRS https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=786201.msg8861544#msg8861544 |
| 16:40:51 | tacotime: | but ehm |
| 16:41:24 | tacotime: | not really sure i believe it, it sounds like it might also be in the ecdh for stealth addressing, and bcx hasn't ever really shown himself to be a crypto master |
| 16:41:56 | zooko: | * zooko pays attention to the conversation |
| 16:42:15 | zooko: | … about 2-way-pegging, I mean. |
| 16:42:24 | tacotime: | zooko: heh. |
| 16:50:29 | andytoshi: | jgarzik: yes, bitcoin would need to understand the SPV proofs |
| 16:50:48 | andytoshi: | jgarzik: tho ofc you can do a trust-based version using multisig with existing bitcoin |
| 16:52:08 | Taek42: | what's a good resource for understanding side chains better? |
| 16:53:47 | andytoshi: | Taek42: jgarzik asked last night, i think at this point http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32108143/ is the only good resource out therae |
| 16:54:43 | jgarzik: | Taek42, "side chains with 2-way pegging" ITYM :) |
| 16:55:01 | jgarzik: | andytoshi, hmmm |
| 16:55:10 | Taek42: | I meant side chains in general as well |
| 16:55:11 | andytoshi: | (i'm going afk for abt an hour) |
| 16:55:15 | skinnkavaj: | tacotime: I don't believe BCX is trolling |
| 16:58:41 | tacotime: | skinnkavaj: ehm... we've had two academic cryptographers review the reference code, so it seems unlikely, but who knows. |
| 16:59:21 | sipa: | jgarzik: how do you call a non-merged mined chain that has 2-way pegging? |
| 17:16:34 | gmaxwell: | tacotime: that sounds like BS. Proof that the privacy and security of stealth address style addresses is perfect is trivial. |
| 17:21:23 | jgarzik: | sipa, side chain with 2-way pegging |
| 17:21:40 | sipa: | but you told me that "side chain" for you means "merged mined chain" |
| 17:22:00 | sipa: | the pegging is independent of the mining system used |
| 17:22:36 | sipa: | it's pointless to argue about semantics of course - but having consistent naming is useful |
| 17:22:44 | jgarzik: | sipa, Not quite. IMV, "side chain" applies to any chain that is "connected" to the bitcoin blockchain. That can include merge-mined, the put-block-header-into-OP_RETURN side chain design of mine, or similar. Thus my definition of side chain is "borrows or links bitcoin mainnet security somehow" |
| 17:23:09 | jgarzik: | counterparty & mastercoin are not side chains |
| 17:23:11 | sipa: | jgarzik: i'm talking about a totally independently mined chain, but with 2-way pegging to bitcoin |
| 17:23:32 | jgarzik: | sipa, pegged chain |
| 17:24:04 | jgarzik: | "side chain" implies to me it is an adjunct to the main chain somehow |
| 17:25:51 | gmaxwell: | jgarzik: I'm not sure how "sideness" implied the merged mining though. Adjunct might mean in some other reason (e.g. because it's pegged), e.g. why privledge sharing POW? |
| 17:26:12 | jgarzik: | Can 1-way pegging be done without bitcoin protocol modification? |
| 17:27:17 | sipa: | yes |
| 17:27:23 | sipa: | see counterparty |
| 17:27:44 | Dr-G2: | Dr-G2 is now known as Dr-G |
| 17:27:46 | gmaxwell: | Sure. Adam posted about that a couple years ago. But its yucking in an extreme, IMO because it implies losers. |
| 17:28:15 | jgarzik: | gmaxwell, Not sure what that means. What implies losers? |
| 17:28:40 | gmaxwell: | E.g. if the 1-way-peg system becomes boring or disliked or replaced later, the people left holding the coins are screwed... since they can't take them back out again. |
| 17:29:57 | gmaxwell: | They could only hope to sell them off to a greater fool faster. Also creates a risk of moving coins into it, since you'll be stuck. |
| 17:30:08 | jgarzik: | gmaxwell, somebody actually holds the coins? sipa just said it was like counterparty (a burn) |
| 17:30:28 | sipa: | 1-way peg means burning coins in one side to instantiate them on the other side |
| 17:30:29 | jgarzik: | * jgarzik is confused, and clearly needs to research more on 1-way peg. |
| 17:30:47 | jgarzik: | sipa, gmaxwell doesn't seem to be talking about burning, but holding. |
| 17:30:57 | sipa: | holding the coin on the other side |
| 17:31:22 | gmaxwell: | one way is like a roach motel. Coins check in, but they don't check out. They're burned in some kind of way in bitcoin to make them appear on the secondary system. |
| 17:31:58 | jgarzik: | ok, so it is a burn, not any sort of holding. |
| 17:32:07 | gmaxwell: | jgarzik: going back to the terminology; would you call namecoin a "sidechain"? it's merged mined.. but doesn't care about bitcoin at all, and would keep working fine if everyone stopped using bitcoin. |
| 17:32:07 | jgarzik: | yah, provable burn is easy |
| 17:32:20 | jgarzik: | gmaxwell, yes, I consider namecoin a side chain |
| 17:32:42 | jgarzik: | gmaxwell, in _practice_ it is heavily linked to bitcoin |
| 17:32:49 | sipa: | its security is |
| 17:32:52 | sipa: | its currency isn't |
| 17:33:01 | jgarzik: | * jgarzik nods noddingly |
| 17:33:10 | sipa: | i believe you're alone with that definition for sidechains |
| 17:33:13 | jgarzik: | and when that security goes away, most if not all users will disappear |
| 17:33:21 | jgarzik: | thus its life reallly is linked to bitcoin |
| 17:33:27 | sipa: | but it does highlight that sidechain is a vaguely defined concept |
| 17:33:40 | jgarzik: | it's a general term |
| 17:33:47 | jgarzik: | more widely applicable than just 2-way pegging |
| 17:34:01 | gmaxwell: | For example, if many people decided this extra name feature was super better than bitcoin and stopped using bitcoins and started using namecoins... and just gave up on bitcoin (moving just that hasrate to namecoin).... |
| 17:34:43 | gmaxwell: | I think the notion that I've used is "adjunct" and could include a number of ways of being related. |
| 17:35:16 | gmaxwell: | Thought I'd elevate currency connection (e.g. some kind of pegging) as more important than other relationship. |
| 17:36:21 | jgarzik: | RE "For example" I agree... in theory. In practice, I think that's highly unlikely and impractical. I think it's merge-mined for life, and as a result, a side chain. |
| 17:36:32 | jgarzik: | lives and dies on the teat of bitcoin ;p |
| 17:36:45 | sipa: | why not just call it 'merged-mined chain' - that term is way older than sidechains... |
| 17:37:02 | jgarzik: | merged-mined chains are a subset of side chains |
| 17:37:11 | sipa: | imho it's completely orthogonal |
| 17:37:13 | jgarzik: | side chains can include block header in OP_RETURN |
| 17:37:45 | sipa: | the decision of how a chain is secured is completely orthogonal to how its currency is defined |
| 17:38:11 | sipa: | a chain can be independently mined, or merged-mined, or even just a ledger defined by a single server |
| 17:38:35 | sipa: | the currency can be natively created through subdidy, or through issuance, or defined by 2-way pegging |
| 17:39:07 | sipa: | but it seems you want sidechain to completely refer to the chain, and not be about the currency at all |
| 17:39:12 | jgarzik: | if it's life is linked to bitcoin main chain in some way, it is a side chain. |
| 17:39:37 | sipa: | while i think pretty much everyone else has been using it as propererty of the the currency, independently of how its chain is defined |
| 17:39:56 | sipa: | sidecurrency would probably be less confusing |
| 17:39:57 | sipa: | :) |
| 17:40:46 | jgarzik: | based on developments coming down the road.... disagree |
| 17:41:03 | sipa: | ? |
| 17:41:07 | zooko`: | sipa: what's "subsidy", vs. issuance? |
| 17:41:20 | jgarzik: | well, ok, example from today too: namecoin. it's not about the _currency_. it's about the chain. The dataset in the chain. |
| 17:41:21 | zooko`: | zooko` is now known as zooko |
| 17:41:31 | jgarzik: | NMC is just a token needed to active the decentralized app. |
| 17:41:35 | jgarzik: | *activate |
| 17:41:48 | sipa: | jgarzik: fair enough - i agree that the 'chain' part is confusing in the name |
| 17:42:05 | sipa: | but i really think you're the only one that wants to widen sidechain to include things like namecoin |
| 17:42:35 | jgarzik: | Perhaps. But I will strongly and loudly disagree with the strict definition of "side chain == chain with 2-way pegging" |
| 17:42:51 | jgarzik: | I think that's just Blockstream marketing |
| 17:43:04 | gmaxwell: | I have no freeking idea what you're talking about there. |
| 17:43:40 | sipa: | i think i've been using a sidechain as "chain with a currency related to that of a main chain" |
| 17:43:50 | jtimon: | namecoin could survive bitcoin's death |
| 17:43:58 | jgarzik: | c.f. theory, practice. |
| 17:43:59 | sipa: | which is wider than 2-way pegging, but is independent of how it is mined |
| 17:44:30 | sipa: | zooko: a chain could have a property that allows a trusted single party to issue new coins (for example with a promise to exchange it for something in the real world) |
| 17:44:35 | jtimon: | in my mind sidechains and 2 way peg are the same thing, it's just a way to avoid the terms altcoin and altchain |
| 17:45:07 | jgarzik: | see? :) |
| 17:45:10 | gmaxwell: | jtimon: What about if the 2-way peg is asymetric? |
| 17:45:48 | jtimon: | mhmm, not sure what you mean but if it has 2 way peg is a sidechain |
| 17:45:58 | gmaxwell: | e.g. it's not 1:1, you get 1000 sidechain coins, and can redeem 1001 sidechain coins for one bitcoin? |
| 17:46:06 | jtimon: | a chain with 2-way peg to litecoin would be a litecoin sidechain |
| 17:46:26 | jtimon: | gmaxwell why would you want to do that? |
| 17:46:40 | gmaxwell: | What if you have a chain which is merged mined with bitcoin, but has 2-way pegs to both litecoin and bitcoin as distinct units of account that can be traded on it. |
| 17:46:56 | gmaxwell: | jtimon: I wouldn't it's stupid, generally, but it's technically feasable within the same framework. |
| 17:47:27 | jtimon: | then I guess I would just call it "stupid idea"? |
| 17:47:29 | gmaxwell: | Or what if it's not merged mined, but uses another POW? or what if it's merged mined but requires a UTXO query POW in addition? |
| 17:48:09 | jtimon: | in the other case, it would be a sidechain to both btc and ltc |
| 17:48:12 | zooko: | sipa: I see. |
| 17:48:14 | gmaxwell: | jtimon: well imagine you want something with demurrage like properties? or bond like properties? |
| 17:48:19 | sipa: | jgarzik: so, in your mind, an independently-mined chain whose only currency is 2-way pegged from bitcoin... is that a sidechain or not? its life in also inherently linked to bitcoin |
| 17:48:35 | jtimon: | you can make a sidechain with demurrage fees |
| 17:49:14 | sipa: | but inherently linked to bitcoin-the-currency, not directly to bitcoin-the-chain |
| 17:49:46 | zooko: | sipa: that is a thing that I've considered creating. |
| 17:50:07 | jtimon: | and I don't see why sidechains can't use another pow or the other thing you said |
| 17:50:08 | jgarzik: | sipa, yes |
| 17:50:36 | jgarzik: | whether through mining or currency or some other factor, life & death are -- in all practicality, not theory -- linked to bitcoin main chain. |
| 17:51:05 | sipa: | jgarzik: ok, so it means "either block creation is linked to another chain, or currency instanciation is linked to another currency" |
| 17:51:26 | jgarzik: | I think that's a fair definition |
| 17:51:47 | jtimon: | jgarzik what's wrong with sidechain == chain with 2 way peg? if that's not what it means, we will have to invent another term because 2wp-chain is very ugly |
| 17:51:58 | jgarzik: | pegged chain |
| 17:52:12 | jtimon: | yeah that's less ugly |
| 17:52:14 | sipa: | well there is one point: 2wp is not a property of the chain |
| 17:52:26 | sipa: | it's a property of a currency inside a chain |
| 17:52:44 | sipa: | so having 'chain' in the name is confusing |
| 17:53:00 | jtimon: | but why can't we keep using merged mined chains for merged mined chains? |
| 17:53:09 | jgarzik: | you can |
| 17:53:14 | jgarzik: | side chain is a superset of that definition |
| 17:53:18 | jgarzik: | IMV |
| 17:53:53 | jtimon: | rephrase, why do you want a term that includes 2wp (merged mined or not) + merged mined altcoins? |
| 17:54:44 | jgarzik: | jtimon, it's dumb to exclude non-2way-pegged configurations from being called "side chain" |
| 17:54:49 | jgarzik: | such as https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=676703.msg7682680#msg7682680 |
| 17:55:30 | Taek42: | I believe vitalik defined side chain as 'Uses a separate blockchain and the Bitcoin currency', which makes sense to me. I don't really see why merge mining should be lumped in. Nobody else seems to use the term that way |
| 17:55:36 | jgarzik: | Or ephemeral-coin design discussed here, that I would like to implement. |
| 17:55:48 | jgarzik: | you get rights to post on that side chain, by proving unspendable UTXO from bitcoin |
| 17:56:08 | jgarzik: | s/unspendable/unspent/ er |
| 17:56:55 | jtimon: | don't know the details but that sounds much more like a sidechain than namecoin |
| 17:57:05 | jtimon: | namecoin is not a sidechain at all |
| 17:58:16 | jgarzik: | if bitcoin dies, namecoin will die, in practice. |
| 17:58:23 | jgarzik: | nobody will bother with it |
| 17:58:27 | gmaxwell: | ah, like some of the ANanti-dos tokens for holding bitcoins. |
| 17:58:33 | jtimon: | not necessarily, they can hardfork again |
| 17:58:50 | jtimon: | or maybe miners just keep mining namecoin |
| 17:59:13 | jtimon: | in any case, I don't like sidechain == a chain that dies with bitcoin |
| 17:59:14 | jgarzik: | * jgarzik won't bother repeating "theory" vs. "practice" discussion from above :) |
| 17:59:20 | gmaxwell: | such a system could quite easily be called a sidechain, I think, ... well excepting perhaps if it's not a chain at all! :) |
| 17:59:51 | gmaxwell: | Thats the kind of things I was talking about what if the peg is not 1:1. Some kind of ephemerial ownership of utxo is a kind of non 1:1 peg, a derivitave on bitcoin. |
| 18:00:28 | jtimon: | what if all users decide to move alll btc to a sidechain and bitcoin-the-chain dies but bitcoin-the-currency survives in the sidechain? |
| 18:01:17 | Guest80999: | Guest80999 is now known as BlueMatt |
| 18:01:21 | gmaxwell: | The "non-coercive upgrade". |
| 18:01:54 | jtimon: | or a scrypt sidechain, what does it have in common with namecoin? |
| 18:02:27 | jtimon: | I think vitalik's definition is perfectly fine |
| 18:02:34 | jgarzik: | To review that design for others, "ephemeral coin" was discussed on -wizards a few weeks ago. The goal is to provide a vaguely-bitmessage-like chain, to which you may post messages to various mailboxes. Entries expire after 2 weeks, or earlier if requested. The limiting factor is providing a bitcoin UTXO proof, that gives you posting rights as long as that UTXO remains unspent. If you lock-up 1.0 BTC, you get 1.0 BTC wort |
| 18:02:34 | jgarzik: | h of posting rights to EphemCoin chain. |
| 18:02:39 | jtimon: | and it doesn't include nmc |
| 18:04:32 | jtimon: | thank you, I'm not sure that can be considered "another chain with btc as currency" but maybe, certainly not nmc |
| 18:05:05 | jgarzik: | whether through mining or currency or some other factor, life & death are -- in all practicality, not theory -- linked to bitcoin main chain. |
| 18:05:34 | jgarzik: | My definition is both general and directly relates to _real world end results_ |
| 18:06:03 | jgarzik: | If bitcoin ceases to function, does X also cease to function? |
| 18:06:17 | jgarzik: | In theory, namecoin continues. In practice, it will not. |
| 18:06:39 | Taek42: | jgarzik we understand where you are coming from with your definition, but it just doesn't seem to be the definition that the rest of the world uses. at least, as far as I've been able to tell |
| 18:07:07 | jgarzik: | Yes, the rest of the world seems to use "side chain == chain with 2-way pegging" |
| 18:07:11 | jgarzik: | to which I push back |
| 18:07:58 | jgarzik: | Further, when talking to non-programmers, you get |
| 18:08:03 | jgarzik: | "side chain == Blockstream product" |
| 18:08:39 | jtimon: | what if all users decide to move alll btc to a sidechain and bitcoin-the-chain dies but bitcoin-the-currency survives in the sidechain? |
| 18:09:11 | jtimon: | jgarzik vitalik's definition doesn't mean "blockstream product" |
| 18:10:17 | jgarzik: | Just reporting what I encounter out in the world, when talking to reporters, VCs, Bitcoin Foundation types, cryptocurrency lawyers, ... |
| 18:11:44 | jtimon: | why don't you push back on "side chain == Blockstream product" instead of "side chain == altchain with the same currency" |
| 18:11:51 | jtimon: | ? |
| 18:13:01 | jgarzik: | I do |
| 18:13:12 | jgarzik: | I push back with "side chain is anything that lives & dies with bitcoin" |
| 18:13:30 | jtimon: | what if all users decide to move alll btc to a sidechain and bitcoin-the-chain dies but bitcoin-the-currency survives in the sidechain? |
| 18:14:21 | tromp: | then jeff will chant "bitcoin is dead. long live bitcoin!" :) |
| 18:16:17 | jgarzik: | jtimon, not worried about incredibly unlikely scenarios |
| 18:18:11 | jtimon: | I don't see that as extremely unlikely, it's actually a good way to deploy hardfork changes IMO |
| 18:19:28 | jtimon: | also your "side chain is anything that not necessarily in theory but in practice (what jgarzik considers likely to happen) lives & dies with bitcoin" leaves some 2wp chains out of the definition |
| 18:20:48 | jtimon: | what if freicoin becomes a sidechain to bitcoin? if bitcoin dies, the bitcoin asset in freicoin dies, the freicoin chain not necessarily |
| 18:22:19 | jtimon: | btw blockstream doesn't own any sidechain domain... |
| 18:23:07 | tromp: | in any case, there is a well defined notion of 2pw chain, and the accepted name for it is side-chain, not pegging chain (which frankly sounds awkward |
| 18:23:43 | jgarzik: | I will continue to disagree public RE "the accepted name" |
| 18:23:48 | jgarzik: | *publicly |
| 18:24:28 | gmaxwell: | pegging unfortunately invites the urban dictionary definition. This was pointed out to me by my SO when I was writing an abstract for a conference talk on the subject, so I've avoided using it generally. |
| 18:24:32 | jtimon: | well, the term was invented to mean exactly that, I don't see why we need to invent a new one now |
| 18:24:44 | phantomcircuit: | gmaxwell, it's really quite an unfortunate name... |
| 18:24:48 | BlueMatt: | pegging is also a very standard currency term |
| 18:24:57 | BlueMatt: | also, I enjoy having the urban dictionary definition |
| 18:25:03 | BlueMatt: | I mean we did go with HD wallets...................................... |
| 18:25:08 | jgarzik: | side chain with 2-way pegging |
| 18:25:12 | jgarzik: | is technically accurate |
| 18:25:15 | phantomcircuit: | BlueMatt is just trying to trick you into googling pegging |
| 18:25:27 | BlueMatt: | phantomcircuit: did you not already know what pegging was? |
| 18:25:36 | BlueMatt: | its not a particularly strange thing |
| 18:25:40 | phantomcircuit: | BlueMatt, im from san francisco... yes i did |
| 18:25:52 | jtimon: | merged mined altcoin is a technically accurate term for nmc |
| 18:25:59 | jgarzik: | And yes, just mentioning "2 way pegging" brings out the twitter chuckles |
| 18:26:00 | jgarzik: | every time |
| 18:26:35 | BlueMatt: | jgarzik: why are you listening to twitter? |
| 18:26:48 | jgarzik: | BlueMatt, that's the social media for VCs |
| 18:27:00 | gmaxwell: | jgarzik: yea, there are many many many kinds of possible sidechains, thats the point. Any particular use will need to qualify what it is. |
| 18:27:21 | jtimon: | jgarzik can't you just invent a new term to mean what you want to mean |
| 18:27:22 | jtimon: | ? |
| 18:27:43 | gmaxwell: | I think that the kind of utxo holding proof chain for anti-dos in a messaging system is a perfectly cromulent use of the word. |
| 18:28:14 | jgarzik: | * jgarzik googles cromulent, after wondering if it has anything to do with Conan the Barbarian |
| 18:28:29 | gmaxwell: | jtimon: Consider what jeff is talking about. It some external system which rate limits you based on possession of spendable bitcoins. But it is not a bidirectional peg, and yet its still currency linked. |
| 18:29:27 | phantomcircuit: | jgarzik, :P |
| 18:31:30 | jtimon: | I could decide now that coinjoin means coinjoin + coinswap + alternative pow altcoins, but why would people want to start using my new definition? |
| 18:31:30 | jtimon: | I don't see why would you want to include ixcoin in the term at all, it's completely unrelated |
| 18:40:49 | gmaxwell: | jtimon because it's _not_ a new definition. Perhaps to you, because lots of the press ran off with a narrower one, but I think myself and adam have always used a somewhat broader definition there. Keep in mind adam was originally trying to figure out how to do sidechain like things with a one-way peg. |
| 18:41:49 | jtimon: | but we started to use the term after 2wp to mean 2wp-chains no? |
| 18:42:23 | gmaxwell: | No. Go see the logs here. |
| 18:42:57 | gmaxwell: | Its certantly become popular in that sense, and I think that the 2wp is the most interesting class of sidechains. |
| 18:43:46 | gmaxwell: | The term is descriptive, it's probably been invented multiple times. |
| 18:44:12 | gmaxwell: | But as a descriptive term it's very general, so no shock that people reasoning from first principles may have slightly different meanings. |
| 18:44:18 | jtimon: | it may have been invented several times to mean different things... |
| 18:47:16 | jtimon: | if that's the case it's unfortunate that we used to mean 2wp |
| 19:02:23 | jgarzik: | RE "pegging" & Beavis + Butthead snortles |
| 19:02:30 | jgarzik: | "transitive chain"? |
| 19:02:55 | jgarzik: | BiDi chain? |
| 19:07:58 | gmaxwell: | I was thinking BiDi while typing the above, so a vote for that. "Transitive currency" |
| 19:13:35 | Eliel: | ok, so this time the shed is already painted and we're arguing about what to name the colors :) |
| 19:17:26 | zooko: | :-) |
| 19:23:29 | jtimon: | was there any other use for the term sidechain before 2wp? |
| 19:23:52 | sipa: | i've used it to mean "reorganized bitcoin main chain branch" |
| 19:24:02 | jtimon: | BiDi? |
| 19:24:58 | Taek42: | BiDirectional? |
| 19:25:05 | jtimon: | oh, ic |
| 19:26:50 | jtimon: | not that I dislike it, but as Eliel says, I would say the bike is already painted |
| 19:28:36 | sipa: | s/bike/shed/ :) |
| 19:30:03 | jtimon: | yeah, whatever |
| 19:30:26 | sipa: | :D |
| 19:31:08 | jtimon: | parkinson's would not complain about that small detail (s/bike/shed/) ;) |
| 19:31:14 | jgarzik: | We paint sheds -and- bikes on this channel. |
| 19:31:54 | sipa: | jtimon: yeah, it was an attempted QED |
| 19:39:50 | zooko: | zooko is now known as zookotest |
| 19:39:58 | zookotest: | zookotest is now known as zooko |
| 19:58:37 | Dizzle_: | Dizzle_ is now known as Dizzle |
| 20:26:35 | Taek42: | Why is the difficulty adjusted every 2016 blocks instead of every block? I would think that smooth adjustments would be better. |
| 20:28:18 | jtimon: | this difficulty filter is working well with bitcoin |
| 20:28:31 | woah: | true |
| 20:29:08 | Taek42: | I'm not saying it's an issue, I'm just wondering if there's a specific reason that a non-smooth function was chosen |
| 20:29:31 | jtimon: | freicoin had much more difficulty variance (like +-1000% in hours) and we had to hardfork to a more dynamic one that changes diff every 9 blocks |
| 20:30:07 | Eliel: | Taek42: I'm not sure about the reasoning but some altcoins who're trying different difficulty algorithms, some of them every block have suffered attacks due to them. |
| 20:30:20 | tacotime: | per block works ok depending on how you do it. |
| 20:30:28 | jtimon: | bitcoin's filter probably works better than freicoin's with a stable hashrate |
| 20:30:47 | tacotime: | ppc uses exponentially weight average of 10 days or something, monero uses median of 720 blocks |
| 20:31:13 | Taek42: | I thought the altcoins suffered because they didn't keep the clamp on the difficulty change tight enough - it could swing by a lot more than 4x every 14 days |
| 20:32:04 | Eliel: | Taek42: yes, biweekly adjustments doesn't work that well unless you're the hashrate leader. |
| 20:32:42 | tacotime: | yeah. alts have the multipool problem of rapidly changing hashrates. |
| 20:33:09 | tacotime: | if your hash rate is relatively steady it's fine. |
| 20:33:46 | tacotime: | but if not, it's often more profitable to switch to other coins and wait for the diff to fall, then go back to the coin when it was, and repeat. |
| 20:34:09 | Eliel: | rolling median sounds like it might have some benefits over biweekly though. At least on first glance. |
| 20:34:14 | tacotime: | this used to happen to ltc a lot before asics came out, there'd be yo-yoing difficulty. |
| 20:35:00 | tacotime: | Eliel: It's not a bad algorithm, just wish ours was longer than 12 h period, but we didn't set that, some cryptonote person did, and were stuck with it barring hardfork (which we may do). |
| 20:35:21 | Eliel: | 12h period is definitely too small |
| 20:35:24 | tacotime: | monero's algo also truncates ~20% of the outliers from the dataset to make it harder to manipulate |
| 20:48:04 | helo: | tacotime: how is it determined if a block is an outlier? |
| 20:48:23 | helo: | ~log2(hash)? |
| 20:52:29 | tacotime: | tbh i don't totally follow the algo that was written by CN |
| 20:52:30 | tacotime: | https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/1b8a68f6c1abcf481652c2cfd87300a128e3eb32/src/cryptonote_core/difficulty.cpp#L110-L117 |
| 20:53:48 | tacotime: | DIFFICULTY_CUT is 60, DIFFICULTY_WINDOW is 720 |
| 20:54:50 | tacotime: | it kinda looks like it's by timestamp outlier |
| 22:13:18 | IntelAtom: | IntelAtom has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 23:28:05 | samson2: | samson2 is now known as samson_ |