| 00:29:22 | gmaxwell: | adam wrote a whole post on ring sig this; on bitcointalk |
| 00:30:04 | gmaxwell: | shen_noe: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.msg3298692#msg3298692 |
| 00:35:48 | shen_noe: | gmaxwell thanks! |
| 00:40:09 | shen_noe: | wow that's impressively more thought out than mine |
| 01:27:13 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest59127 |
| 01:41:31 | gmaxwell: | man, PHC mailing list really kinda sucks; it's like sci.crypt in the '90s... full of handwaving noise. |
| 01:42:38 | gmaxwell: | latest thing is someone 'zomg my new scheme is turing complete and thus provably irreducable' and then waving away any need for any further analysis. |
| 01:44:13 | gmaxwell: | Nevermind the fact that it only can reach a tiny subset of all universal circuits of the size in question; and there is no reason to think that the subgroup he can reach isn't dense with trivial circuits. It also ignores the fact that the non-linear compression functions in every other PHC are almost certantly universal in the same way (with sutiable preprocessing); yet many of them have strong |
| 01:44:19 | gmaxwell: | proofs about their behavior that show their action is not trivial. |
| 01:44:51 | gmaxwell: | then the next thread is someone rediscovering collission hashcash POW, and then shortly there after realizing that it its trivially paralizable and has significant TMTO. |
| 01:51:03 | bramc: | Hey everybody |
| 01:51:40 | midnightmagic: | HI bram! |
| 01:52:22 | bramc: | I gave a talk on cryptocurrencies generally at the bitcoin-dev meeting in sf on monday. Hopefully it will be posted online soon. |
| 01:56:00 | bramc: | Also made this less controversial than I expected post: https://medium.com/@bramcohen/the-inevitable-demise-of-unconfirmed-bitcoin-transactions-8b5f66a44a35 |
| 01:56:23 | CodeShark: | heh - you did write that up :) |
| 01:57:20 | bramc: | CodeShark, Yes I was totally serious about working on it. Next up: A post on basic fee setting strategy. |
| 02:52:44 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest8297 |
| 03:44:35 | riplin: | riplin has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 04:07:37 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest93645 |
| 04:32:21 | dgenr8: | bramc: if you're looking for controversy, don't post conventional wisdom ;p |
| 04:32:47 | riplin: | riplin has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 05:05:59 | CodeShark: | dgenr8: I don't think that post is particularly controversial in this channel - but if you go elsewhere you sometimes find these vehement voices insisting we continue to encourage merchant adoption even if it means encouraging them to accept zero confirmation transactions |
| 05:07:29 | CodeShark: | but I think the "controversy" tends to miss the real point...which is that zero confirmation transactions cannot rely on very much of Bitcoin's security model |
| 05:08:07 | CodeShark: | but it's conceivably ok to accept them given a reasonable security/risk model for the particular use case |
| 05:08:34 | CodeShark: | however, given that most people using bitcoin have no clue what this means it's better to discourage zero confirmation transactions |
| 05:12:22 | CodeShark: | unless we give them good tools to support such use cases (i.e. subscription services that can be pulled upon double-spend detection) |
| 05:12:28 | dgenr8: | CodeShark: people like Balaji Srinivasan say things like "I'm confident the developers are working hard on solving this problem." He's mistaken. And by that I do not mean it's not worth working on. Only that nobody really is. |
| 05:13:03 | CodeShark: | solving which problem? the public perception? or the fact that zero confirmation transactions aren't really secure? |
| 05:14:35 | CodeShark: | or double-spend detection? |
| 05:14:50 | CodeShark: | fairly reliable double-spend detection would already be a significant breakthrough :) |
| 05:15:19 | CodeShark: | the "only relay first" policy makes it trivially simple to split the network |
| 05:15:35 | petertodd: | CodeShark: double-spends can happen succesfully well after the first tx, even without miners adopting rbf |
| 05:15:35 | dgenr8: | CodeShark: no need to convince me |
| 05:16:00 | petertodd: | CodeShark: just run a full-rbf node and watch the logs, you see lots of succesful doublepsends |
| 05:16:32 | CodeShark: | petertodd: yes, I'm not saying that absence of a double-spend detection implies the unconfirmed transaction is safe :) |
| 05:16:54 | CodeShark: | I'm just pointing out that our current tools don't even do this particularly well |
| 05:16:57 | petertodd: | CodeShark: point is, without the ability to do something about the double-spend, it doesn't help much |
| 05:17:35 | CodeShark: | petertodd: you can if you're selling services like web hosting :) |
| 05:17:42 | dgenr8: | petertodd: doing something about it is not the realm of bitcoin. it's in the realm of real life |
| 05:17:57 | petertodd: | CodeShark: if you're selling web-hosting, learning about the double-spend when the tx confirms is fine |
| 05:18:04 | petertodd: | dgenr8: ^ |
| 05:18:34 | dgenr8: | CodeShark: bramc compares zeroconf to life before bitcoin. that fails to ask how the existence of the blockchain alters the problem. i've looked into it somewhat https://github.com/dgenr8/out-there/blob/master/ds-dep-win.md |
| 05:20:15 | CodeShark: | ultimately I think the blockchain is a dispute resolution mechanism. problem is we have no retroactive repudiation mechanisms :) |
| 05:20:20 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest26502 |
| 05:20:41 | CodeShark: | it's a feature...and a flaw |
| 05:20:54 | CodeShark: | depending on your point of view :) |
| 05:23:00 | CodeShark: | I think it's dangerous to rely on relay nodes enforcing rules. unfortunately, we've sort of ended up in exactly this situation |
| 05:23:17 | gmaxwell: | relay nodes enforcing doesn't do much good in any case. |
| 05:26:43 | dgenr8: | there's a tendency to define the p2p network as what it isn't, and if everything you hear is true, it's not much of anything ;) otoh if having contracts with miners is bad, the p2p network has to be something. |
| 05:28:47 | gmaxwell: | dgenr8: what do you know about people making "contracts" with miners? |
| 05:31:16 | dgenr8: | only what coinbase wrote on the mailing list, which seemed a natural reaction to full-rbf |
| 06:21:55 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest35932 |
| 08:05:16 | hobana.freenode.net: | topic is: This channel is is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja |
| 08:05:16 | hobana.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: andy-logbot davi jtimon p15x www AaronvanW Xh1pher frankenmint paveljanik ThomasV snthsnth _whitelogger priidu jgarzik TheSeven roconnor theymos ryanxcharles copumpkin mengine FranzKafka bramc CodeShark sneak ebfull MoALTz justanotheruser MatrixBridge tomorrowboy akrmn1 belcher hashtag_ cornus_ammonis Tebbo RH311ish gielbier espes__ PaulCapestany Starduster mkarrer_ spinza platinuum crescendo prodatalab jbenet Tiraspol c0rw1n midnightmagic |
| 08:05:16 | hobana.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: yorick a5m0 dignork DougieBot5000 Iriez Xzibit17_ Alanius_ Apocalyptic mm_1 goregrind alawson melvster nullbyte polyclef asciilifeform scoria OneFixt nsh superobserver elastoma CryptoGoon arubi_ dc17523be3 morcos ajweiss sdaftuar HM ttttemp adam3us1 Luke-Jr koshii LeMiner harrow GreenIsMyPepper lnovy fkhan badmofo runeks huseby Madars Hunger- phantomcircuit artifexd s1w mariorz wizkid057 sturles azariah Jaamg_ kumavis yrashk dasource btcdrak |
| 08:05:17 | hobana.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: roybadam1 stonecoldpat mountaingoat Logicwax airbreather EasyAt warptangent helo [d__d] petertodd guruvan humd1ng3r otoburb CodeArtix tromp_ Guest27737 SDCDev MrTratta berndj gregeh bedeho Taek gribble Tenhi isis qawap BigBitz sundance leakypat wiz binaryatrocity gmaxwell amiller thrasher` SwedFTP bosma AlexStraunoff Graet veox UllrSkis K1773R sparetire luny devrandom narwh4l waxwing MRL-Relay epscy dgenr8 forrestv gnusha Cory tucenaber |
| 08:05:17 | hobana.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: bliljerk101 ThinThread jonasschnelli null_radix catcow adams__ rasengan cfields kanzure TD-Linux richardus sl01 michagogo kinlo nephyrin` Krellan vonzipper larraboj_ coryfields_ optimator stevenroose BlueMatt eric afdudley ryan-c prosodyContext mappum nickler_ kyuupichan livegnik pigeons davout Fistful_of_Coins @ChanServ AdrianG xabbix Eliel brand0 harrigan weex smooth iddo so lclc gwillen bsm117532 jcorgan Meeh jrayhawk warren merlincorey |
| 08:05:17 | hobana.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: dansmith_ jessepollak wumpus comboy Muis starsoccer ggreer roasbeef heath grubles Anduck gavinandresen yoleaux poggy throughnothing catlasshrugged [ace] BrainOverfl0w indolering mr_burdell nanotube fenn jaromil jouke STRML andytoshi BananaLotus fluffypony mikolalysenko |
| 09:11:19 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest44724 |
| 09:19:57 | bosma: | bosma is now known as bosnia |
| 09:20:23 | bosnia: | bosnia is now known as vosma |
| 09:20:47 | vosma: | vosma is now known as bosma |
| 12:48:52 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest74934 |
| 12:57:02 | Pasha: | Pasha is now known as Cory |
| 14:05:59 | CodeShark: | CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is the new GOTO :) |
| 14:27:05 | ThinThread: | We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (other than slaves), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. |
| 14:43:13 | prosodyContext: | thinthread: We hold thlog truths to be self-node~~nt~~ && decentralized* ./∫rename trying to put the bitriotic into your patriotic hurts. :∫ |
| 14:48:39 | ThinThread: | i think Thomas Jefferson knew fucking his slave was wrong (even if in "love"), so he consciously slipped that beautiful egalitarian language into pact agreeable to the southern states, to set timebomb of civil war and emancipation |
| 14:53:50 | ThinThread: | ThinThread has left #bitcoin-wizards |
| 15:56:36 | nickler_: | Are there any known sybil resistant multi-party coin flipping protocols? The problem with commitment based constructions appears to be that an attacker can refuse to reveal if another of his identities profits. Time-lock encryption seems to be able to solve this. |
| 17:30:46 | bramc: | nickler_, You don't even need any new locktime opcode, the existing locktimes on transactions are sufficient. |
| 17:57:56 | nickler_: | bramc: Sufficient for what? |
| 17:58:19 | bramc: | nickler_, Sufficient to implement fair gambling. |
| 17:59:52 | bramc: | nickler_, https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/784.pdf |
| 18:05:28 | nickler_: | bramc: ah, thanks, I'll have a look |
| 19:25:48 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest18425 |
| 20:49:14 | Anduck: | just wondering, could the single-show scheme work with sequence numbers? |
| 20:53:15 | Anduck: | probably nvm for now, gotta think more |
| 21:17:55 | roybadam1: | roybadam1 is now known as roybadami |
| 22:55:11 | jae: | jae is now known as Guest88564 |
| 23:36:29 | belcher_: | belcher_ is now known as belcher |