| 00:03:38 | phantomcircuit: | petertodd, also, why bother with the key/value seems like the key alone would be sufficient |
| 00:03:46 | phantomcircuit: | wait no |
| 00:03:55 | phantomcircuit: | key/value is useful |
| 04:08:42 | fanquake: | fanquake has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 08:10:21 | lclc_bnc: | lclc_bnc is now known as lclc |
| 09:05:17 | card.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 |
| 09:05:17 | card.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: andy-logbot damethos coutts Transisto Greed` koshii cbeams MoALTz TheSeven rfreeman_w todaystomorrow wfbarks jgarzik justanotheruser coiner Dr-G3 ryanxcharles Qfwfq bitbumper samson_ wizkid057 phantomcircuit OneFixt bosma kgk moa maaku prodatalab Cory tacotime gonedrk atgreen shesek arowser spinza Nightwolf HaltingState copumpkin c0rw1n Shiftos PRab mortale go1111111 paperbot Hunger- Dyaheon bbrittain mkarrer iambernie dansmith_btc GAit zenojis |
| 09:05:17 | card.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: zwischenzug luny epscy NikolaiToryzin rasengan forrestv null_radix Luke-Jr Myagui nickler bobke_ altoz warptangent mr_burdell Logicwax zibbo Meeh kanzure tromp_ ebfull SomeoneWeird Krellan tromp__ poggy pi07r_ sipa comboy_ mmozeiko lnovy btcdrak Taek optimator_ [\\\] waxwing Guest39111 Apocalyptic throughnothing Pan0ram1x yoleaux petertodd crescendo kyletorpey CryptOprah Flyer33 AdrianG cfields kumavis sl01_ Fistful_of_Coins gmaxwell kinlo ahmed_ |
| 09:05:17 | card.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: a5m0 BlueMatt Starduster PaulCapestany Emcy_ Baz__ prepost doc321R K1773R SDCDev so nuke1989 weex Anduck snorkl livegnik Graftec Alanius lclc Grishnakh GnarSith sneak [d__d] gnusha_ espes___ hguux_ btc_ jbenet michagogo BigBitz DoctorBTC SubCreative otoburb wumpus artifexd EasyAt starsoccer HM hollandais fluffypony fenn heath LarsLarsen jaromil helo Keefe Iriez Eliel jrayhawk iddo huseby phedny MRL-Relay berndj midnightmagic nsh Muis coryfields |
| 09:05:17 | card.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: mappum andytoshi BrainOverfl0w fds4345 gazab warren gavinandresen pigeons nanotube @ChanServ lechuga_ abc56889 harrow Gnosis roasbeef ryan-c [Tristan] TD-Linux catcow danneu amiller @gwillen smooth Graet LaptopZZ gribble asoltys |
| 09:31:30 | Greed`: | Greed` is now known as Greed |
| 10:00:06 | kyletorpey: | kyletorpey has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 11:13:08 | mircea_popescu: | mircea_popescu has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 12:01:51 | SubCreative: | SubCreative is now known as Subtoshi|zzz |
| 13:23:35 | Aquent1: | Aquent1 is now known as Aquent |
| 14:06:21 | petertodd: | phantomcircuit: re: proofmarshall, needed a serialization/deserialization library for cryptographic proofs; existing stuff like protocol buffers simply ignores the needs of deterministic hashing, among other things |
| 14:07:20 | petertodd: | phantomcircuit: the proofmarshal repo is just the subtree of my python-smartcolors repo sliced out for early publication; it's not very useful right now |
| 14:17:03 | gavinandresen: | go1111111: I think Vitalik’s exponential subjective scoring might be brilliant. I’m thinking through a similar idea. |
| 14:18:12 | andytoshi: | posted on schneier's blog https://medium.com/stanford-select/keeping-secrets-84a7697bf89f |
| 14:57:18 | spiftheninja: | spiftheninja is now known as DOGEshares |
| 15:05:47 | DOGEshares: | DOGEshares is now known as DOGEshare |
| 15:08:31 | DOGEshare: | DOGEshare is now known as spiftheninja |
| 15:12:12 | spiftheninja: | spiftheninja is now known as DOGEshare |
| 15:17:11 | DOGEshare: | DOGEshare is now known as spiftheninja |
| 15:22:23 | spiftheninja: | spiftheninja is now known as DOGEshare |
| 15:23:58 | DOGEshare: | DOGEshare is now known as spiftheninja |
| 16:18:12 | lclc: | lclc is now known as lclc_bnc |
| 16:18:35 | Dr-G3: | Dr-G3 is now known as Dr-G |
| 16:18:44 | Dr-G: | Dr-G is now known as Dr-G2 |
| 20:00:11 | Subtoshi|zzz: | Subtoshi|zzz is now known as SubCreative |
| 20:08:30 | NewLiberty: | I'm somewhat less enamoured of vitaliks Hypercube Scalability due to the dependance on merge mining for security which provides little actual security for individual dapps. (miners can attack one while mining all others with very little opportunity cost) |
| 20:09:30 | helo: | have any of these oddball ideas of vitalik's held any water? |
| 20:11:30 | helo: | complicated enough to avoid dismissal by the average user |
| 20:13:39 | pigeons: | helo: schellingcoin: NO, futurarchy: NO, dagger POW: NO, slasher pos: i wouldnt know, i'd guess no |
| 20:14:03 | kanzure: | is that a list of his previous proposals? |
| 20:14:14 | pigeons: | the ones i remember as being obviously unworkable |
| 20:14:37 | helo: | does he ever retract the ideas, or just move onto something else that nobody listening within two degrees has the ability to critique? |
| 20:15:01 | pigeons: | he admits the flaws and says the next iteration is now awesome |
| 20:15:21 | helo: | so he makes them more complicated |
| 20:15:29 | NewLiberty: | The Merkle-Patricia tree is pretty cool |
| 20:16:23 | sipa: | the one alan reiner came up with, or the one by michael gronager, or the one by mark friedenbach, or the one by answer miller? |
| 20:16:44 | sipa: | helo: it's called proof-of-review :) |
| 20:16:59 | phantomcircuit: | NewLiberty, very little? as implemented all current merged mined coins can be attacked with virtually no opportunity cost or consequence |
| 20:17:00 | sipa: | helo: complicate the proposal until new reviewer can find a flaw anymore |
| 20:17:17 | sipa: | *no reviewer |
| 20:17:18 | helo: | it's too easy :/ |
| 20:17:37 | phantomcircuit: | sipa, his plan is the same as always |
| 20:17:45 | phantomcircuit: | iterate until reviewers get tired of reviewing |
| 20:18:17 | NewLiberty: | ok maybe very little > virtually none |
| 20:18:35 | NewLiberty: | but I think we agree anyhow |
| 20:19:15 | phantomcircuit: | at this point he's been wrong so many times |
| 20:19:24 | phantomcircuit: | i think the burden of proof should be on him to show that it's right |
| 20:20:01 | kanzure: | i'm not sure how to fix reviewer exhaustion attacks like that |
| 20:20:08 | kanzure: | because even if you demand payment, he can pay..... |
| 20:20:46 | kanzure: | (and payment doesn't necessarily fix the actual exhaustion) |
| 20:23:02 | kanzure: | it could be something like, "if none of the mental thinking that went into generating the prior reviews was acknowledged and incorporated into this latest iteration, then the payment should be order-of-magnitude larger for wasting the reviewer's time" but there's no simple way to computationally show this violation has happened |
| 20:23:05 | gmaxwell: | Whats odd to me is that a lot of these proposals are old and already abandoned. He never seems to cite his sources. |
| 20:23:42 | soroushjp: | soroushjp has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 20:24:19 | kanzure: | (of course, i'm talking about the general case, and not vbuterin specifically) |
| 20:24:39 | phantomcircuit: | i would say charge for reviews but then he'd abuse them |
| 20:24:50 | phantomcircuit: | maybe charge for private reviews |
| 20:25:00 | gmaxwell: | Sure, its not unique there... though most places doing this are easier to exclude on the basis of a complete absense of saying anything technical at all. |
| 20:25:10 | kanzure: | you should just skip that step and have him pay for design work instead |
| 20:25:20 | NewLiberty: | require academic rigor before review... |
| 20:25:44 | kanzure: | academic rigor like spoofing sources or spinning a web of self-cites? |
| 20:26:17 | gmaxwell: | There certantly has been a fair amount of design-by-tournament; but annoyingly behaving in a way that discourages that-- e.g. not expending a lot of time to critique random ideas peopel show up with-- has hurt the level of discussion around here. |
| 20:27:22 | kanzure: | oops, i also should have tacked on a disclaimer with my last message as well (wasn't talking about vbuterin, just a well-known way of spoofing academic rigor) |
| 20:27:35 | helo: | despite some pretty heroic efforts, there just aren't enough reviewers |
| 20:28:12 | fenn: | nobody's getting paid to review papers |
| 20:28:26 | gmaxwell: | it's more than that... it's incredibly important to reduce anything in this space to a maximally simple construction; because too complex just means unreviable even if you have a bunch of reviewers. |
| 20:28:37 | kanzure: | fenn: he recently acquired 30k BTC, so he could just pay forever and still waste everyone's time |
| 20:31:11 | NewLiberty: | Measuring "too complex" is the trick. Everything in one's own mind seems simple. Need more 5 yr olds to explain things to for checking this. |
| 20:32:08 | fenn: | kolmogorov complexity is not perfect but at least measurable |
| 20:32:37 | gmaxwell: | NewLiberty: I'm not sure that thats actually been a problem. I think a lot of people in this space are not even trying / don't actually see the issue. |
| 20:33:32 | tromp_: | fenn: kolmogorov complexity can only be upperbounded |
| 20:33:58 | tromp_: | fenn: on all but a finite number of strings |
| 20:34:45 | NewLiberty: | The problem of "too much to do and not enough people that can" is well understood. With a complexity metric based reviewer cost, at least there might be some feedback. |
| 20:35:51 | NewLiberty: | The "not enough people that can" is what gives you a defacto pass on core dev / blockstream conflict of interest issues. |
| 20:36:18 | phantomcircuit: | NewLiberty, there really isn't a conflict |
| 20:37:58 | NewLiberty: | There is, but this isn't really the place for that discussion. |
| 20:52:59 | fenn: | does it make sense to establish a "bitcoin university" loosely following the academic model of peer review, classes, original research? |
| 22:10:02 | teaspoon: | hi everyone, I wanted to ask about the capabilities of the protocol, people talk about time delayed payment… so can I set up an address where in a year's time the funds will be sent to another address? |
| 22:10:20 | sipa: | #bitcoin please |
| 22:10:28 | teaspoon: | ok |
| 22:10:30 | teaspoon: | thanks |
| 22:11:12 | Luke-Jr: | felt like a -wizards thing to me, since it'd need an OP_MATURITYVERIFY |
| 22:11:57 | teaspoon: | oh, so this is the place to ask? |
| 22:12:14 | teaspoon: | I'm a bitcoin protocol noob but still want to understand what's possible |
| 22:12:20 | Luke-Jr: | teaspoon: not if sipa asks you to keep it in #Bitcoin |
| 22:12:23 | teaspoon: | or what might be possible in the future |
| 22:12:31 | teaspoon: | ahh ok, he is mod? |
| 22:12:36 | teaspoon: | no problem then |
| 22:12:38 | sipa: | haha |
| 22:13:01 | sipa: | sorry, i may have misunderstood, but the question sounded to me like you didn't really understand the protocol, in which case this is not the place to learn |
| 22:13:35 | Luke-Jr: | teaspoon: more importantly, he is liable to leave if he thinks the topic is lame and he's intelligent enough that we want him around :p |
| 22:14:12 | teaspoon: | you are correct, I don't understand the protocol in depth only at a functional level |
| 22:14:24 | teaspoon: | i.e. from a user's perspective |
| 22:14:45 | Luke-Jr: | a user's perspective has approximately nothing in common with the protocol |
| 22:14:56 | Luke-Jr: | so #bitcoin is probably the right place for your questions |
| 22:15:01 | teaspoon: | ok |
| 22:15:17 | sipa: | Luke-Jr: if at any point i choose to leave, that's just because i feel my time is better spent not following a channel, and nobody should feel bad about that :) |
| 23:13:16 | moa: | http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/11/18/1830229 |
| 23:13:34 | kanzure: | .title |
| 23:13:35 | yoleaux: | 404 File Not Found |
| 23:14:07 | moa: | http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/11/18/1830229/launching-2015-a-new-certificate-authority-to-encrypt-the-entire-web |
| 23:14:13 | moa: | sry |
| 23:49:03 | nazareth: | nazareth has left #bitcoin-wizards |