03:04:59	zooko:	When's the next time and place that Bitcoin core devs are going to congregate at? I want to go there then.
03:11:34	kanzure:	i believe they rotate irc channels every 5 minutes. it's hard to keep up.
03:13:49	TrollsRoyce:	lol
03:16:39	kanzure:	but you can figure out which channels by referring to your super secret decoder ring..
03:34:40	gmaxwell:	zooko: I think we'll all be at FC2015. Other than that, pieter and I are in mtv at the moment.
03:34:46	BlueMatt:	zooko: I think that has only ever happened at foundation-sponsored bitcoin conferences
03:34:51	BlueMatt:	that, and fc15
03:35:24	zooko:	gmaxwell: What are you doing in mtv?
03:35:33	gmaxwell:	I live here. Sipa is visiting.
03:35:51	zooko:	Oh yeah. :-)
03:35:52	Luke-Jr:	BlueMatt: he didn't say *all* <.<
03:35:55	gmaxwell:	(so have lots of bitcoin people recently for various reasons)
03:36:03	BlueMatt:	* BlueMatt lives in the city, fwiw
03:36:51	gmaxwell:	Probably 95% of the lines of traffic from this channel have been in the bay area at one point or another in the last month or so.
03:39:44	gmaxwell:	lets see recent bitcoin technical people from this channel/#bitcoin-dev I've seen in person, myself, pieter, jtimon, petertodd, maaku, adam3us, andytoshi, phantomcircuit, Luke-Jr, gavin, BlueMatt, gwillen, devrandom, plus some additional people I know less well.
03:40:30	BlueMatt:	thanks for tagging /everyone/
03:40:33	Luke-Jr:	lol
03:40:34	gmaxwell:	hah
03:40:52	Luke-Jr:	gmaxwell: does a day go by that you don't see yourself?
03:41:11	gmaxwell:	probably.
03:41:16	BlueMatt:	Luke-Jr: mirror could be dirty...
03:41:28	Luke-Jr:	BlueMatt: doesn't have to be his head
03:41:29	gmaxwell:	may not make it as far as a mirror.
03:41:46	Luke-Jr:	hard to avoid seeing ones hands
03:42:47	sipa:	i don't think all people with bitcoin commit rights have ever been in one place together since 2011
03:43:16	BlueMatt:	ams conference, no?
03:43:24	sipa:	gmaxwell was not there
03:43:30	BlueMatt:	ahh
03:43:42	gmaxwell:	everyone with commit access has never been in one room.
03:43:43	sipa:	and wumpus wasn't in san jose 2013
03:43:57	gmaxwell:	AFAIK, unless it happened once before I did.
03:43:57	BlueMatt:	gmaxwell: when it was only satoshi.....
03:44:09	gmaxwell:	well sure, but not long after.
03:44:16	sipa:	or when it was just jeff gavin and tcatm
04:01:37	zooko:	gmaxwell: so the answer seems to be that "hang out at gmaxwell's house".
04:05:35	gmaxwell:	or in the area, at least. I've been conciously playing a bit of a social butterfly and bringing people togeather when they were in proximity.
04:07:57	zooko:	Nice. Good for you.
04:08:01	zooko:	How long is sipa staying?
04:08:28	sipa:	let's ask him
04:08:58	sipa:	october 24th
04:09:32	zooko:	Hi there. :-)
04:10:09	sipa:	hi!
12:47:22	tepper.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
12:47:22	tepper.freenode.net:	Users on #bitcoin-wizards: andy-logbot Aquent_ zooko Starduster pen adam3us phantomcircuit lysobit Luke-Jr Krellan p15 SDCDev rdponticelli hearn waxwing torsthaldo gloriusAgain CoinMuncher emsid mkarrer c0rw1n rfreeman_w cbeams OX3 AaronvanW HaltingState justanotheruser AlSzacrel vmatekol_ ubuntu_ austinhill TheSeven tacotime TrollsRoyce jchp Dr-G2 mortale espes__ digitalmagus Adlai devrandom Graftec wiretapped jgarzik Nightwolf copumpkin spinza dansmith_btc Happzz
12:47:22	tepper.freenode.net:	Users on #bitcoin-wizards: Fistful_of_coins artifexd _2539 michagogo lnovy tromp bbrittain weex gribble nanotube a5m0 irc88 EasyAt_ Transisto grishnakh__ altoz Kretchfoop Emcy jaekwon CryptOprah Muis samson_ Hunger-- wizkid057 nuke1989 BrainOverfl0w Sangheili artilectinc Guest42039 aburan28 wumpus jrayhawk_ jasx zwischenzug shesek firepacket dgenr8 arowser go1111111 zenojis LarsLarsen BigBitz Adohgg drawingthesun berndj [d__d] jcorgan yoleaux Iriez hollandais hguux
12:47:22	tepper.freenode.net:	Users on #bitcoin-wizards: livegnik stonecoldpat Dyaheon MRL-Relay mappum jbenet [Derek] zibbo_ kanzure petertodd optimator [\\\] warren pi07r K1773R Eliel HM gmaxwell amiller_ crescendo cfields btc_ kgk bobke iddo comboy NikolaiToryzin coryfields LaptopZZ Meeh poggy_ UukGoblin danneu catcow TD-Linux [Tristan] helo smooth otoburb gwillen ryan-c mmozeiko roasbeef pajarillo sl01 Keefe Gnosis ahmed_vegas Logicwax so epscy BlueMatt starsoccer midnightmagic Graet kinlo
12:47:22	tepper.freenode.net:	Users on #bitcoin-wizards: pigeons lianj Apocalyptic mr_burdell fluffypony SomeoneWeird forrestv Anduck Taek42 sipa [nsh] DoctorBTC harrow throughnothing Alanius abc56889 lechuga_ burcin phedny @ChanServ asoltys
13:10:26	Aquent_:	Aquent_ is now known as Aquent
13:30:43	Guyver2:	Guyver2 has left #bitcoin-wizards
13:40:19	onefox:	hello
13:40:41	onefox:	has someone here expierens with micropayment channels ?
13:46:49	hearn:	hey
13:46:50	hearn:	yeah
13:46:53	hearn:	what's the question?
13:50:59	hearn:	onefox: poke
13:51:31	onefox:	ah sry in bitcoinj
13:51:36	onefox:	the nLockTime is set to one day but can i make it shorter, like 2 hours or so ?
13:52:18	onefox:	the time if a channel is not closed by the server and the client want his funds back
13:52:31	onefox:	https://bitcoinj.github.io/working-with-micropayments
13:54:42	hearn:	yes it is configurable these days
13:54:42	hearn:	probably i need to update the docs
13:57:11	onefox:	great, and if i start this channle and the server is vanished will the client get the hole funds back or only the remaing and the other will as in the channle definited to the server ?
13:59:21	Taek42:	onefox using a time period of 2 hours would not be a good idea, because block times can vary a lot
13:59:46	hearn:	onefox: i think the docs go into this
14:00:15	hearn:	onefox: the client will get all the funds in the channel back if the server disappears. obviously this is supposed to be a rare event, which is why 24 hours is the default.
14:00:50	hearn:	onefox: the implementation imposes a minimum and i think 2 hours may be it. but it may be higher, i forgot.
14:01:23	onefox:	ah okey its also on the servers concern that he close the channel so he can get his part of the funds
14:01:31	onefox:	i guess ^^
14:02:30	hearn:	yeah
14:02:30	hearn:	exactly.
14:02:46	hearn:	the server really really wants to close the channel properly. the refunds are there in case something goes wrong, that's all.
14:02:59	onefox:	i assume that the 2 hours can only be reduced if the block time is small like in dogecoin for example.
14:03:12	onefox:	or in other altcoins
14:03:21	hearn:	i don't know. i've never thought about that case. btw bitcoinj has a #bitcoinj irc channel if you want to discuss the details of the code there
14:03:26	hearn:	this channel is more meant for research
14:04:02	onefox:	yes i was there but i didn't got a responce in 3 hours .. so i checked some more channels out ;)
14:04:12	onefox:	bitcoindev pointed me here
14:04:43	hearn:	oh, you were?
14:04:43	hearn:	well normally i'm around there on weekdays CET
14:04:44	hearn:	usually from around noon onwards
14:05:00	hearn:	let's move this discussion there
14:40:56	amtri:	kur
14:41:01	Happzz:	Happzz has left #bitcoin-wizards
15:41:58	kanzure:	.to brisque is there a document that has a list of inaccuracies in that unmentionable book?
15:41:58	yoleaux:	kanzure: I'll pass your message to brisque.
16:57:30	Aquent:	Aquent is now known as bullwhale
17:35:49	bullwhale:	bullwhale is now known as Aquent
18:01:34	gwillen:	gwillen is now known as Guest11330
18:18:18	Guest11330:	Guest11330 is now known as gwillen
18:54:25	skyraider7:	skyraider7 has left #bitcoin-wizards
19:40:38	justanotheruser:	justanotheruser is now known as midoriseki
19:40:50	midoriseki:	midoriseki is now known as justanotheruser
20:02:09	phantomcircuit:	anybody have an opinion on bitgo?
20:04:22	davidlatapie:	davidlatapie has left #bitcoin-wizards
20:04:30	hearn:	it seems to have been reasonably well designed, but i only ever spent five mins playing with it. the guy who created it is an ex googler, one of the guys behind spdy
20:05:53	Emcy:	wassat
20:06:04	phantomcircuit:	Emcy, multisig wallet
20:06:20	phantomcircuit:	appear to be pushing to outsource policy enforcement essentially
20:06:41	Emcy:	???
20:09:26	phantomcircuit:	Emcy, 2/3 multisig
20:09:30	phantomcircuit:	they have a key
20:09:35	phantomcircuit:	you have a key and a backup key
20:09:47	phantomcircuit:	they have policy rules for their key to sign
20:10:07	Emcy:	such as
20:10:07	phantomcircuit:	a genuinely interesting project
20:10:36	phantomcircuit:	Emcy, business logic stuff like daily limits
20:11:00	hearn:	they can also do 2-factor via sms iirc
20:11:05	hearn:	there are a few projects like that out there now
20:11:14	hearn:	it makes a ton of sense. sort of half way between just a password and a trezor
20:11:35	Emcy:	at least someone is doing something with multisig
20:12:13	phantomcircuit:	hearn, it's better than a trezor for a business since you can push (some) of the business logic there
20:12:15	hearn:	there are people doing things with multisig
20:12:22	hearn:	phantomcircuit: right for online systems, yes
20:12:28	phantomcircuit:	otherwise you're just hoping your controller isn't stealing
21:20:40	ucerron:	is it possible to build a sidechain with colored coins?
21:27:39	Luke-Jr:	ucerron: yes
21:27:55	ucerron:	are there any implementations out there already?
21:28:08	Luke-Jr:	assuming you mean sidechain that has coloured coins, not creating a sidechain out of coloured coin constructs
21:28:18	Luke-Jr:	ucerron: there are no implementations of sidechains at all yet
21:28:40	ucerron:	what about treechains?
21:29:01	Luke-Jr:	you'd have to ask petertodd on that, I think
21:29:08	Luke-Jr:	AFAIK he's the only one working on those
21:29:15	ucerron:	viacoin right?
21:29:23	Luke-Jr:	that would be getting off-topic
21:40:21	Taek42:	I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that tree chains aren't very close to being implemented
22:35:18	Taek42:	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=817991.0
22:36:02	Taek42:	tried to design a system where not every node needs to see every transaction, yet you can still make reasonable assumptions about network security if you can assume that the majority of hashing power on the network is honest
22:45:18	Luke-Jr:	Taek42: it seems to be built on some false premises
22:46:57	Luke-Jr:	Taek42: also, excluding transactions from your blocks is not dishonest
22:47:04	Taek42:	hmm. which ones?
22:48:20	Luke-Jr:	"To preserve security, child blockchains are randomly assembled from nodes, and each node is placed in exactly one child blockchain." <-- consensus systems cannot have random
22:49:42	Taek42:	oh. I should discuss that more then.
22:50:01	Taek42:	"Random" is achieved by taking the hash of the previous root block
22:50:03	Luke-Jr:	Taek42: I don't see how this helps scale at all
22:50:24	Luke-Jr:	Taek42: the hash isn't random; miners can withhold blocks with hashes they dislike
22:50:31	Taek42:	It's possible to manipulate that random number, but it's expensive
22:50:32	Luke-Jr:	and I'm not sure this system disincentivises that
22:51:40	Taek42:	yeah the incentive model needs to be fleshed out a bit more thoroughly as wel. It's possible that it doesn't fully disincentivize block withholding
22:52:22	Luke-Jr:	Taek42: anyhow, with this, every node needs to watch every child blockchain for their transactions
22:52:34	Luke-Jr:	and to know if those blocks are valid, they need to check every transaction in them
22:52:42	Luke-Jr:	otherwise they're trusting the miners
22:52:58	Taek42:	They only need to check the child nodes that have transactions they are interested in
22:53:07	Taek42:	not all of them
23:00:38	sipa:	how do they know that the inputs in those child nodes themselves are valid?
23:00:48	sipa:	by recursing further?
23:05:47	Taek42:	Everyone has a complete copy of the root blockchain, which is used to define who gets to mine on child blockchains
23:06:12	sipa:	you're not answering my question
23:06:18	Taek42:	child blockchains could potentially be completely internal ecosystems, not ever trading externally
23:06:22	Taek42:	*getting there
23:06:50	Taek42:	if you did want them to trade externally, you'd probably do it through the root blockchain
23:07:04	Taek42:	which means you would end up with with 'black' inputs, inputs that you never verify
23:07:36	Taek42:	but because hosts are randomly scattered throughout the network, you can believe that the inputs are honest
23:07:52	Taek42:	*as long as you believe that the majority of the hashing power is honest, which you can't necessarily verify
23:08:49	sipa:	that sounds a lot like sidechains :)
23:10:13	Taek42:	yeah I guess they are a lot more similar than I originally realized
23:10:57	sipa:	the hardest part is how to prove to the root chain that the transfers within one of the child chains were done correctly
23:11:15	sipa:	because if the root chain has to validate all child chains to assure itself of that, you have not gained anything
23:12:10	Taek42:	well, the idea is that you don't prove it at all. Instead you just rely on your random dispersion of hosts, and that a dishonest child blockchain will eventually be overtaken by an honest fork
23:12:34	Taek42:	Not being 100% sure is a sacrifice that you have to make if you want the scaling property
23:12:43	Taek42:	at least, as far as I understand
23:13:00	Taek42:	But I would argue that being 99.999999% sure is good enough
23:13:30	Taek42:	Especially if you are 100% sure about your own personal childchain that you watch.
23:16:19	sipa:	'eventually' is not enough
23:16:38	sipa:	you need to have that assurance before you accept a ttransfer from a childchain to the root chain
23:16:52	sipa:	or risk inflation of your currency
23:17:48	Taek42:	well, if you know that there are 21 million total coins, and you know that each child blockchain has X or Y, you never let the child spend more than their aggregate sum
23:18:13	Taek42:	so the worst thing that happens is some child builds a dishonest blockchain as the longest fork and it doesn't turn around for a very long time
23:18:41	Taek42:	this is sounding increasingly like sidechains though :P
23:23:10	Taek42:	I guess the static consensus part though would make it significantly different
23:42:14	manaka:	https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2is4us/whats_wrong_with_counterparty/ in this post vitalik says colorecoins p2ptrade has no way of enforcing orders. i 'm not sure what he means
23:45:25	kanzure:	protocol can't force bitcoin spends. so there's some "escrow period" after which if the transaction was never made, the other side of the transaction gets reverted.
23:46:07	kanzure:	s/reverted/de-escrowed
23:50:58	manaka:	the escrow period gives a chance for all nodes to communicate. otherwise double spending could occur correct?