| 08:05:14 | sinisalo.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 |
| 08:05:14 | sinisalo.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: andy-logbot Mably nullbyte _biO_ davi btcdrak rht__ Krellan nessence_ wallet42 Xh1pher GAit mjerr rusty chmod755 go1111111 afk11 the_last TheSeven goregrind fanquake Dr-G2 moa jmcn spinza catcow SwedFTP d1ggy mountaingoat stevenroose BlueMatt eric afdudley0 warptangent dc17523b13 larraboj ryan-c coryfields ThinThread Guest15258 null_radix adams__ mariorz vonzipper nsh sipa_ richardus Tebbo` luny` crescendo prosodyContext_ mappum wiz_ nickler_ |
| 08:05:14 | sinisalo.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: jbenet kyuupichan livegnik pigeons PRab_ davout Fistful_of_Coins forrestv mikolalysenko fluffypony Emcy Starduster justanotherusr amiller akstunt600 BananaLotus Logicwax LeMiner2 DougieBot5000_ Guest28897 MrTratta scoria c0rw|zZz andytoshi superobserver STRML jouke Adlai Alanius_ jaromil_ fenn Cory gribble nanotube Guest68586 kanzure mengine grandmaster indolering BrainOverfl0w [ace] catlasshrugged throughnothing sparetire poggy guruvan |
| 08:05:14 | sinisalo.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: waxwing dignork yoleaux gavinand1esen Anduck_ optimator veox_ helo contrapumpkin grubles heath roasbeef MoALTz__ ggreer sparetire_ elastoma Iriez starsoccer binaryatrocity_ melvster1 gnusha Muis Xzibit17 jcluck comboy petertod1 wump tucenaber a5m0_ shesek Tiraspol cryptowe- jessepollak dansmith_ huseby theymos jaekwon GreenIsMyPepper bliljerk101 [d__d] TD-Linux pollux-bts AlexStraunoff rasengan cfields Jaamg lnovy Luke-Jr Zouppen Taek |
| 08:05:14 | sinisalo.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: jonasschnelli sturles HM midnightmagic merlincorey warren azariah_ jrayhawk_ qawap_ Meeh_ maaku ttttemp adam3us gielbier mkarrer mm_1 epscy face espes jgarzik tromp_ SubCreative akrmn dgenr8 isis kinlo nephyrin EasyAt phantomcircuit tromp hashtag_ badmofo triazo lmatteis koshii _whitelogger dasource ebfull Madars sl01 OneFixt jcorgan sundance bsm117532 CodeShark K1773R gwillen lclc bedeho wizkid057 ajweiss so s1w yrashk CryptoGoon artifexd |
| 08:05:14 | sinisalo.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: runeks kumavis platinuum yorick Apocalyptic iddo smooth thrasher` weex berndj harrow harrigan brand0 leakypat Eliel xabbix sdaftuar morcos Graet AdrianG @ChanServ |
| 09:06:58 | petertod1: | petertod1 is now known as petertodd |
| 09:32:06 | Anduck_: | Anduck_ is now known as Anduck |
| 10:03:30 | LeMiner2: | LeMiner2 is now known as LeMiner |
| 10:27:32 | jaromil_: | jaromil_ is now known as jaromil |
| 10:29:38 | CodeShark: | bramc, that author keeps on saying that O(2^(log^a n)) is more general than poly(n)...but aren't they essentially the same thing? |
| 10:30:09 | CodeShark: | oh, I guess he's gone :) |
| 10:31:06 | CodeShark: | I guess that question goes out to anyone else who might know an answer: how is O(2^(log^a n)) more general than O(a^n) ? |
| 10:31:17 | CodeShark: | err, I mean O(n^a) |
| 10:32:37 | CodeShark: | oh, nm :p |
| 10:45:41 | wump: | wump is now known as wumpus |
| 10:50:51 | sipa_: | what is log^a |
| 10:51:01 | sipa_: | (log n)^a ? |
| 11:57:43 | CryptoGoon: | CryptoGoon is now known as testgoon |
| 11:59:16 | rusty: | rusty has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 12:00:55 | testgoon: | testgoon is now known as CryptoGoon |
| 12:13:00 | veox_: | veox_ is now known as veox |
| 12:27:08 | c0rw|zZz: | c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n |
| 13:08:49 | catcow_: | catcow_ is now known as catcow |
| 13:10:08 | adams___: | adams___ is now known as adams__ |
| 13:16:04 | mariorz_: | mariorz_ is now known as mariorz |
| 13:16:13 | btcdrak_: | btcdrak_ is now known as btcdrak |
| 13:20:56 | btcdrak: | btcdrak is now known as Guest86916 |
| 13:57:11 | c0rw1n: | c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|afk |
| 16:31:43 | wiz_: | wiz_ is now known as wiz |
| 17:23:39 | LeMiner2: | LeMiner2 is now known as LeMiner |
| 18:02:10 | nsh: | hmm, kanzure [or anyone], did this paper come up before? http://www.hit.bme.hu/~buttyan/courses/BMEVIHIM219/2009/Brands.Untraceable_off-line_cash.1993.pdf |
| 18:02:28 | nsh: | -- |
| 18:02:29 | nsh: | . Incorporating the property of untraceability of payments into off-line electronic cash systems has turned out to be no easy matter. Two key concepts have been proposed in order to attain the same level of security against double-spending as can be trivially attained in systems with full traceability of payments. The first of these, one-show blind signatures, ensures traceability of double-spenders after the fact. The realizations of this conce |
| 18:02:29 | nsh: | pt that have been proposed unfortunately require either a great sacrifice in efficiency or seem to have questionable security, if not both. The second concept, wallets with observers, guarantees prior restraint of double-spending, while still offering traceability of double-spenders after the fact in case tamper-resistance is compromised. No realization of this concept has yet been proposed in literature, which is a serious problem. It seems tha |
| 18:02:31 | nsh: | t the known cash systems cannot be extended to this important setting without significantly worsening ... |
| 18:02:34 | nsh: | -- |
| 18:05:38 | kanzure: | nsh: only these, |
| 18:05:39 | kanzure: | http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/Untraceable%20Digital%20Cash,%20Information%20Markets,%20and%20BlackNet.html |
| 18:05:42 | kanzure: | http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/Untraceable%20electronic%20cash.pdf |
| 18:06:28 | nsh: | ty |
| 18:07:39 | nsh: | isis[?] / someone has it in this library: https://github.com/isislovecruft/library/tree/master/cryptography%20%26%20mathematics/cryptocurrencies |
| 18:08:16 | nsh: | 'Add Brands' canonic e-cash design paper.' |
| 18:08:30 | nsh: | but no-one else seems to have cited it in relation to bitcoin, afaict |
| 18:09:06 | nsh: | belay that, https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=bitcoin&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&sciodt=0%2C5&cites=6825807548228841601&scipsc=1 |
| 18:09:53 | nsh: | this would be a nice review paper, were it not being hoarded by science-haters springer: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-19713-5_36 |
| 18:11:46 | kanzure: | .title http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-19713-5_36 |
| 18:11:47 | yoleaux: | Non-conventional Digital Signatures and Their Implementations—A Review - Springer |
| 18:28:31 | akrmn: | sipa: For the subchains thing, I've been thinking more about it and I have some ideas to resolve your concerns, but I need more time to fully think about it. Also, gmaxwell said that extension blocks can be argued to be strictly greater than increasing the blocksize. Also, there's the miner decentralization benefits (even Peter Todd agrees). So I think there are some important applications. Give me a week, maybe I'll have more ideas. |
| 18:29:01 | akrmn: | sipa: In the meantime, I would like to know what your vision is for scaling Bitcoin and how will it address censorship resistance and miner decentralization? |
| 19:28:49 | dEBRUYNE_: | dEBRUYNE_ is now known as dEBRUYNE |
| 20:13:14 | DougieBot5000_: | DougieBot5000_ is now known as DougieBot5000 |
| 20:15:09 | warren: | https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev Everyone please subscribe to the new list, it opens after 9pm UTC. |
| 20:19:27 | isis: | that is my library, yes. |
| 20:20:48 | isis: | brands' work can sometimes be hard to obtain copies of, not to mention that brands' wasn't shy about patenting every whim that floated through his head. |
| 20:23:39 | nsh: | * nsh nods |
| 20:45:08 | wallet42: | wallet42 is now known as Guest14376 |
| 20:45:08 | wallet421: | wallet421 is now known as wallet42 |
| 21:05:50 | temujin_: | temujin_ is now known as temujin |
| 21:07:31 | wallet421: | wallet421 is now known as wallet42 |
| 23:04:49 | phantomcircuit: | warren, can you send out a test message so people will know that they're subscribed to the correct list? |
| 23:05:06 | sipa: | he's sent a bunch of test mails |
| 23:05:08 | sipa: | others too |
| 23:05:54 | phantomcircuit: | guess im not subscribed correctly.. |
| 23:12:14 | kanzure: | git history and light cones http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/git_bisect.html |
| 23:13:57 | nsh: | whoever maintains mailman ironically seems to keep not getting the memo about it no longer being 1992 and asking for passwords so you can send them back in plaintext is maybe not a great idea |
| 23:14:24 | kanzure: | it's not really a password it's more like a textbox where you type random insults |
| 23:14:28 | nsh: | hehe |
| 23:15:20 | nsh: | [random insults which are stored against your permanent record in XKEYSTORE until the heat death of Utah] |
| 23:17:20 | rusty2: | rusty2 has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 23:28:03 | phantomcircuit: | nsh, given utah heat death is continuously imminent |
| 23:29:21 | nsh: | * nsh smiles |
| 23:29:35 | nsh: | i think they figured out how to stop everything turning into fire |
| 23:29:40 | nsh: | for the moment, anyway |
| 23:48:14 | bramc: | After thinking about it some more, I think that practically any attempt to query what the transaction rate on recent blocks were is fraught with danger |
| 23:49:02 | bramc: | Miners can artificially bump up that value with self-payments, which can massively inflate the price if wallets follow it |
| 23:49:54 | bramc: | The only really safe thing is for a wallet to make their first payment by rising up from a small starting value, then each subsequent payment take their last successful value and use some fraction of that as a starting point |
| 23:53:02 | nsh: | why would wallets want to use a measure of transaction volume in making decisions in any case? missed something... |
| 23:53:18 | nsh: | oh, for fee estimation |
| 23:53:25 | nsh: | ? |
| 23:56:59 | leakypat: | bramc doesn't that mean waiting to see if it got confirmed before raising the fee? |
| 23:57:23 | bramc: | leakypat, Yeah you raise the fee for each minted block which it didn't get accepted to |
| 23:57:37 | bramc: | nsh, Yeah I'm talking about fee estimation |
| 23:57:48 | nsh: | * nsh nods |
| 23:57:52 | leakypat: | Right, but that could be hours waiting around and bumping fees |
| 23:58:22 | nsh: | is it not possible to offer variable fee and let miners undercut each other? |
| 23:58:34 | nsh: | not easily at present, i think |
| 23:59:30 | nsh: | some way to recoup a percentage of a high fee offer to ensure rapid confirmation subsequent to mining would be ideal i guess |