sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel 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
<Taek>
and the second is a public attacker with like 40% hashrate who announces blocks but refuses to merge any blocks but his own
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<bsm1175321>
So a long range attack...you can calculate his probability of success but you don't know how many times he tried?
<Taek>
well you know he tried at most 1 time per block that was mined on the network
<Taek>
so there's at least an upper bound
FNinTak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
and with more rigor you can bring the upper bound on attempts a lot lower, as attempts take multiple blocks
<bsm1175321>
With a work weighting, both cases would see their blocks de-weighted relative to the higher work main chain.
<FNinTak>
Taek> when you say strong you mean wrt. ability to partition the network, affect propogation times, etc?
<Taek>
FNinTak: 'strong' attacker to me means a big hashrate advantage and a big latency advantage. e.g. able to mine 40% of the blocks and propagate many per network propagation cycle
<Taek>
And by network propagation cycle, I mean the approx. amount of time it takes honest miners to tell eachother about blocks they've seen.
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
If the block rate is higher than the network propagation cycle by very much, the attacker is inherently weak b/c they fundamentally can't consistently mine + propagate multiple blocks per network tick
<bsm1175321>
I'm confused how latency matters...AFAICT in what I've coded up it doesn't. Cohorts become larger, but if that's accounted for properly, I don't see it as a problem.
<Taek>
An attacker with instant propagation abilities can have their blocks being mined on by 100% of the hashrate immediately every time
<Taek>
that means their blocks will inherently get more confirmations
<FNinTak>
Latency advantage has value separate from hashrate, i.e. can purposefully broadcast conflicting blocks to different segments of the network faster than they should propogate
<bsm1175321>
Oh Taek I'm making a big assumption that maybe you're not: keep ALL blocks. The PoW and coinbase get rewarded, ALL of the time, even if the other transactions in the block are de-weighted by another block. ("Equal pay for equal [proof-of-]work")
<bsm1175321>
This assumption is necessary to solve the selfish mining problem.
<Taek>
no I have that assumption as well
<bsm1175321>
Ok then I'm confused how latency matters.
<Taek>
with most weighting algorithms I've seen either an attacker is able to indefinitely prevent the network from achieving consensus around a particular ordering, or the attacker is able to commit censorship
<FNinTak>
Isn't there, at least in Jute, an upper bound on blocks included per cycle?
<Taek>
e.g. iirc one of your cohort algorithms required the DAG to occasionally be less than 1 wide
<Taek>
if your block time is very low, that's an impracticability
<Taek>
*exactly 1 wide
<bsm1175321>
Well...only if you require that at some point, the ordering of blocks is fixed and transactions can't be reversed. That isn't true in Bitcoin (checkpoints are only convenience)...
<bsm1175321>
IOW I would happily merge a block that only refers to the genesis block, if it met PoW targets.
nooblord has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<bsm1175321>
It destroys an intuitive conversion into a chain-like structure, of course. But I don't see that as a fundamental problem.
<Taek>
how are you setting the PoW targets?
<Taek>
hmm
<Taek>
I think it makes the most sense to use the PoW of the current chain
<bsm1175321>
Given the median cohort time and the "network size" parameter derived from it, you can compute a window of acceptable targets, given expected network latencies.
<Taek>
hmm
<bsm1175321>
Hmmm merging a block which refers only to the Genesis means I need to rethink what is the "set of cohorts" considered for the median calculation.
<bsm1175321>
(Because afterwards there's only one canonical cohort)
<Taek>
yeah, that's the main reason I don't like thinking about cohorts
<Taek>
a 10% attacker can fairly easily ensure that (over a long enough peroid of time) the DAG is always at least 1.0x wide
<Taek>
and realistically "long enough" would be like 15 blocks or something
FNinTak has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<Taek>
I'm trying to find an algorithm that works well when your block time is much, much less than your latency. When your average dag is 50 blocks wide, a 40% attacker with propagation superpowers becomes way more menacing
FNinTak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<FNinTak>
Why would you want a block time below the latency floor? by definition network wouldn't be able to keep up
<Taek>
FNinTak: more miner payouts, more consistent resource load
<Taek>
the more consistent resource load has large implications for scalability
<Taek>
and more miner payouts means you can solo mine with much less investment
<Taek>
more blocks also means a lot less variance for things like confirmation times, and it also means that attackers have a much lower chance of 'getting lucky'.
<bsm1175321>
Well using the "median" cohort time, for a reasonable definition of "set of cohorts" takes care of the problem. That one guy doesn't have an impact on anyone else.
<FNinTak>
isn't estimated latency floor ~15 seconds? already very low
<Taek>
Right now in Bitcoin a 45% attacker can reorg the chain 1 hour deep with like 25% probability. But if 1 hour meant 10,000 blocks, the probability would be nearly zero
<FNinTak>
also other strange things that happen like perverse incentives to mine empty blocks, as seen with ETH
<bsm1175321>
6s by my calculations, and that's only because Bitcoin's p2p network is randomly interconnected. It can be brought below 1s for better network topologies.
<Taek>
(worth adding that if the attacker failed, they'd lose all those blocks)
<Taek>
(so in bitcoin today it doesn't make sense. In orphan-free land, the attacker does not lose all of those blocks, so it makes more sense to try more often)
FNinTak has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<bsm1175321>
Taek I don't think that (block time) << (latency) is a limit necessary to consider. The latter is fixed by physics. The former is correlated with hashrate. So yes, if there exists an attacker with MUCH more than 50% of the hashrate, he could achieve that limit, but let's admit we couldn't defeat such an attacker in the first place.
<Taek>
block time is a setting that you pick
<Taek>
you can choose to set (block time) << (latency) if you felt it was worthwhile
<bsm1175321>
One can only achieve a small block time by increasing your hashrate...
<Taek>
re: latency, network latency under normal conditions is not necessarily going to match network latency under adversarial conditions. I'm not sure how much it would go up but if you route around all of the pre-forwarding that happens, maybe you could push it to 30s
<Taek>
(handwave handwave speculate speculate)
<bsm1175321>
Well, remember that the "median" calculation is exceptionally good at discarding outliers. So an attacker doing that doesn't move the median very quickly or easily.
<bsm1175321>
You get to decide the time window considered for the median calculation. In the present case, I think it makes sense to consider all cohorts. Physics isn't going to change.
<Taek>
you mean adjusting the block time based on network conditions?
<bsm1175321>
Yes.
<Taek>
that's something that makes me inherently nervous, it would take a lot to convince me that it's a safe idea
<bsm1175321>
Ah, another point I should emphasize...it's possible to completely decouple the block time from the target difficulty.
<Taek>
?
<Taek>
isn't the difficultly what inherently ratelimits the network?
<bsm1175321>
No, they can be decoupled.
<bsm1175321>
err...rather...difficulty does inherently ratelimit the network. But you don't have to use it as your timing parameter.
<bsm1175321>
With a DAG you additionally have graph structure to measure the latency. Equivalently you can use the orphan rate. You can measure it and use it to set the block time, totally independently from the difficulty.
<Taek>
ok. You mean that you set the difficulty based on the DAG structure, and not based on the timestamps in the blocks
<Taek>
fwiw I have a limited trust in the virtue of trusting the block timestamps as well, though the fact that machines will reject blocks that have timestamps too far in the future makes it better.
<bsm1175321>
Correct.
* Taek
needs more sleep
<bsm1175321>
At some point I calculated, I think the minimum of that curve has on average \sqrt{2} blocks per cohort.
<Taek>
I think another heuristic that's been useful to me in reasoning about DAGs is asking whether or not an attacker with 51% hashrate exactly (or a 51% softfork) is succesfully able to ignore/censor the other 49% of blocks
<Taek>
if the answer is 'no they cannot', I think it's resonable to show that the algorithm is not safe
<Taek>
because it means that a minority hashrate attacker will be able to manipulate history in some way
<Taek>
namely by inserting their blocks after-the-fact
<Taek>
using the same methods that the 49% would use to circumvent censorship
JackH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<bsm1175321>
Well, I think a corollary to Satoshi's 51% is that if you have more integrated hashpower in a given time window than the entire network since it's beginning, you can also rewrite it from the beginning.
<bsm1175321>
But, the assumption is that during that time window when you're rewriting history, the rest of the network writes more blocks, so you have more history to rewrite...and I believe this collapses back to requiring 51% of the hashrate.
<Taek>
the original algorithm I used for Jute was the 'heaviest parent' rule, which meant you would prioritize merging the thread that had the most blocks in it. That was in violation of the 51% censorship rule, because the next block could always just merge the existing 51% and become heavier
<Taek>
This is the sort of graph I'm talking about
<adlai>
the sidebar?
<Taek>
yeah, you've got 2 chains here. 1 has >51% hashrate and no knowledge of the other chain
<Taek>
the other has a decent amount of hashrate, and is continuously merging the 51% chain
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
* adlai
was making a funny but maybe moloch gives you more-sfw advertisement
<Taek>
so that chain will always have more work in it
<Taek>
oh I didn't realize there were ads
<bsm1175321>
Consider the following algorithm: given any two or more beads in a cohort having mutually common ancestors, assign the work of all *common* descendants to the bead having the highest work (defined by summing its own PoW and all it's uncommon descendants). "Uncommon" = (descendants) - (mutual descendants)
<bsm1175321>
adlai: Go install AdBlock now. Or I will give your silicon children virii.
<adlai>
adblock doesn't block aids
* Taek
will not use postimage again
<adlai>
Taek: i use imgur to host images, afaict they only advertise when you use it as a social media site by browsing the frontpage
<luke-jr>
haha, side effect of ad blockers: people don't know when they're pushing your ads on others
<luke-jr>
adlai: imgur crashes my Chromium lately :|
* adlai
doesn't use adblock because he likes scamming people who PPV
<adlai>
luke-jr: even when people deeplink the image only?
<Taek>
my uploads were failing on imgur. Something about being behind Tor I think
<adlai>
ah yes, they're nazi like that.
<luke-jr>
adlai: surely there's a way to adblock without disabling the PPV
<adlai>
luke-jr: sure, but that story will be told by a better liar than baudolina
<bsm1175321>
FWIW, zerobin.net is my goto for incentive-compatible pasting of text. I haven't found anything for images yet. Any suggestions?
<adlai>
you pastebin (at any text pastebin, eg http://wotpaste.cascadianhacker.com/ ) a base64-encoded version of your image, and then raff your way all the way to the bitbank, or somesuch
<adlai>
bonus points if it's pgp signed, so we don't have to worry about feh exploits
<bsm1175321>
eh I pasted a data:image/png;base64. Totally does not work.
<bsm1175321>
adlai: And where did you get my pgp key and can you trust it?
<bsm1175321>
Teh pgp is exploited.
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
at some point we should be able to use ipfs
<adlai>
given your attempted contributions to decentralized finance, i'd probably trust your pgp key enough to load an image on my shitware box
<adlai>
"files" doesn't cut it, what we want is "conning 'web' browsers into rasterizing stuff'
<bsm1175321>
Any dork can pop in this channel with bsm117532*
<adlai>
is this a critique of pgp fingerprint almost-collisions, or... uh?
bsm117532 is now known as Guest95984
bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
* adlai
sighs
<bsm117532>
Also, do you trust that NickServ and the IRC server are not compromised?
<adlai>
it must be way past your bedtime, or maybe mine
frkbmb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Let's just say I'm working on an identity platform. Bitcoin is a keyserver, augmented with a transaction system, protected by PoW. If only pgpkeys.mit.edu was so reliable...
<adlai>
do i now need to explain how reliable key distribution works?
<adlai>
or shall i compromise on "let's say i downloaded your pgp key over http(no s!) two years ago, but have verified every single paper about braids that was published since then, and compromising this would require MITMing every single connection i made, so i elect to trust it enough to render a fucking png"
<kanzure>
opentimestamps should be timestamping the pgp key server dumps
<kanzure>
it would be good to have timestamps for a bunch of those public keys
<adlai>
no, because any fool can shit into keyservers
<kanzure>
so what?
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<kanzure>
at least you would have timestamped shit :)
<kanzure>
you couldn't prove that you were missing data, of course
<adlai>
at the very least, 8-char keyids should be killed
<adlai>
because they are KNOWN to be broken
<kanzure>
it's still useful to positively attest that you definitely knew some pubkey at some moment
<adlai>
"you"
<adlai>
what about "everybody"?
<kanzure>
"you" is irrelevant
<kanzure>
no that's not how it works
<adlai>
proof of publication > proof of existence
<kanzure>
preimages only have to be known by at least one person, not a specific person, and not everyone
<adlai>
with no disrespect to petertodd, but timestamps are the latter, not the former
<adlai>
what we need is a spamatron
<kanzure>
do you really want a browser rendering svg from zerobin? O_o
<bsm117532>
There is only one resource accountably tied to the real world: proof of work. If you're not using it to distribute keys, someone else will.
<adlai>
this is exactly why i say, PoP > PoE
<adlai>
PoP is tied to the value of PoW, whereas PoE is tied to the value of pretty much nothing
* adlai
can spam eg opentimestamp or deedbot.org as much as he likes, and nobody will complain - but if he tries to encode a dickpick into the actual blockchain, his own wallet will cry
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
and what particular distinction are you making between the two, again?
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<adlai>
there's a difference between proving that $random_server_of_random_signature_algorithm knows your G*p, and proving that $random_plebe could have downloaded it
<adlai>
if you proof-of-publication a pubkey, nobody can claim to have not noticed that $hitler did a birthday attack on the fingerprint
<adlai>
well, they can claim, but you'll laugh.
<kanzure>
"could have downloaded it" what's the benefit of that, again?
<adlai>
what's the benefit of bitcoin? let's just use food as money and spare all these idiots the trouble of learning math
<kanzure>
huh?
<adlai>
by "proof-of-publication", i mean, anybody could have reconstructed this data from the PUBLIC blockchain
<kanzure>
you mean, the preimage?
<adlai>
no need to run an updated-yesterday client, no need to be part of some privileged network, etc
<adlai>
no, i mean the data itself.
<adlai>
if your data is important, it's available. if it's sensitive, it's encrypted; but that doesn't void the previous qualification.
<kanzure>
so you want to publish raw data, rather than attest to its existence? why
<kanzure>
did i get myself into some sort of strange OP_RETURN argument that i'm not aware of?
mkarrer_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adlai>
why even attest to its existence? just send it to your three friends, get their pgp (or whatever other pubkey crypto you trust... really, that is a question, what other pubkey crypto do you trust, bsm117532 ????? ) and be done with
<adlai>
you got yourself into a s-can-be-anything argument
<bsm117532>
Prove to me you are not all three friends.
<bsm117532>
I can generate 4 pgp keys before you type your response.
<adlai>
sure, but i can prove that mine was available.
<bsm117532>
Define "available"
Noldorin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
what is an availability proof, anyway
<adlai>
reconstructable by anybody who had a synchronized bitcoin client.
<adlai>
ie, "available" is qualified by bh, blockheight
<bsm117532>
You waited? You established a key and then later established another? Let me introduce you to my friend sleep(3)
* adlai
sighs
<kanzure>
well he's talking about signed data i think
<bsm117532>
There is only one resource. It is work.
<kanzure>
the signature on the hash of the data and then the data itself (like a movie i guess?)
<adlai>
work is worth ~nothing, if it's the wrong kind of work. and you don't prove data with mere 'work'... work is worth something if it's on extending the bitcoin chain. or do you keep your net worth in ethereum classic?
mkarrer has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<adlai>
sorry, i forgot to include xmr. and script. and all the other shit.
<bsm117532>
Any dickhead can backdate things if he acquires the timestamping key after the fact.
<adlai>
there is tangible value in proving that your pubkey was available to anybody, and slightly less - but nonzero - value in proving that your data was available to anybody who knew some decryption key
<adlai>
this is not about backdating! this about publication. ie, joe the plumber, given the guage of wrench, could have walked into walmart (i mean bitcoin) and bought it
durrf has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
adlai: please introduce your legal framework and evidentiary mechanism in code form. Because you just made that shit up out of your cake hole, I'm pretty sure.
<bsm117532>
Also please introduce evidence that you could not possibly have bribed the plumber.
<adlai>
the second is void, given the first -- but the first could exist someday, just like $bitcoin_2.0_project
<bsm117532>
And the walmart employee regarding the gauges of wrenches that were available at the time before the introduction of metric in the US, and the impossibility of using a non-metric wrench on said bolt.
<bsm117532>
Please account for your accusations in economic terms.
<adlai>
well, cryptograffiti.io or whatever it's url is - exists
<adlai>
my typos do too, appparently.
<bsm117532>
And I trust them. Their owner TOTALLY couldn't be bribed.
<adlai>
so you want another version of the code that pulls data pushed using their interface?
<adlai>
that's a much lower target than what i imagined first!
<adlai>
or maybe we could keep this discussion civil, or theoretical, or whatever this channel is supposed to be
* adlai
has been thinking about an in-signature-spamatron since last year, but the details... those fucking details
* bsm117532
introduces adlai to sarcasm.
* adlai
introduces bsm117532 to bsm117321
<bsm117532>
hahaaaa oh no.
<adlai>
we can duke this out in milan, i failed out of high school wrestling!
<adlai>
or are you not attending
frkbmb has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<bsm117532>
I'll be there. Please introduce yourself using your IRC handle. ;-)
* kanzure
wonders if he should have submitted a talk proposal re: "scaling my giant conversation database"
* adlai
sighs, again... what did we even accomplish here, except for making himself feel bad that he hasn't yet published a spamatron?
<bsm117532>
kanzure: I expect a transcript in the morning. ;-)
<kanzure>
of what
<bsm117532>
Wait, wut? I'm supposed to feel bad for my lack of proof of work on a spamatron?
* adlai
will publish a base64d (that's like sha256d... not) transcript in realtime! . . . n o t
<bsm117532>
kanzure: nothing. Truly. Can we delete this shit from the archives?
<adlai>
can we undo this transaction?
<bsm117532>
I'm sure a helpdesk in India can do that. As long as you know your mother's maiden name, and your last street address.
<kanzure>
stop...
<bsm117532>
Things totally not exploitable by an attacker.
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has quit [Changing host]
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Topogetcyrpto has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pro has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw1n has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
legogris has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
legogris has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Topogetcyrpto_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Topogetcyrpto has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Topogetcyrpto_ is now known as Topogetcyrpto
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has quit [Disconnected by services]
DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-wizards
[7] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
_r0ach_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
r0ach has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Topogetcyrpto_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Topogetcyrpto has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Topogetcyrpto_ is now known as Topogetcyrpto
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Aranjedeath has quit [Quit: Three sheets to the wind]
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
DigiByteDev has quit [Excess Flood]
BashCo has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
BashCo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
BashCo has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
BashCo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-wizards
BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cjd has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
BashCo has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
cryptowest has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.6.3 - http://znc.in]
Topogetcyrpto has quit [Quit: Topogetcyrpto]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
edvorg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
edvorg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
throwawayjon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<throwawayjon>
hey, i have investment questions for CEO of the bitcoin if possibles?
<throwawayjon>
or is onecoin better blockchain?
lvns has joined #bitcoin-wizards
throwawayjon has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
lvns has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
edvorg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jannes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cjd has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
rubensayshi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kyletorpey has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
lvns has joined #bitcoin-wizards
murch has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DigiByteDev has quit [Quit: DigiByteDev]
c0rw1n has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lvns has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
murch has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
wasi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Starduster has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
wasi_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wasi_ has quit [Client Quit]
lvns has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
edvorg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
pro has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lvns has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Mazz_ has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has quit [Changing host]
lvns has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xissburg has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xissburg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DigiByteDev has quit [Quit: DigiByteDev]
paveljanik has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wasi has quit [Quit: Leaving]
wasi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
atgreen has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
wasi has quit [Quit: Leaving]
wasi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Starduster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
atgreen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Lightsword has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
instagibbs has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.6.3+deb1 - http://znc.in]
shesek has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
molz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
droark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moli has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
shesek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<pigeons>
lol
ruby32 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ruby32 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<qpm>
tx:<Jeremy_Rand> pigeons is the CEO of the Bitcoin, he'll be happy to give you investment advice
skang404 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-wizards
davec has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
davec has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skang404 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
Guyver2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
atgreen has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mkarrer_ has quit []
<fluffypony>
he left before I could provide a suitably snarky reply
atgreen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<qpm>
tx:<Jeremy_Rand> fluffypony: out of curiosity, what would your reply have been? (No guarantee I won't steal it next time I encounter such a situation)
<fluffypony>
I would've changed my nick to CEO_of_BTC and encouraged them to leverage their 401k and go all-in on OneCoin
<qpm>
tx:<Jeremy_Rand> fluffypony: that's far better than anything I would have come up with.
<qpm>
tx:<Jeremy_Rand> actually I could have done that more effectively since nick changes behind qpm don't show up on Freenode
<qpm>
tx:<Jeremy_Rand> Are there still people who think Bitcoin has a CEO...?
shesek has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<fluffypony>
I'm sure they were just trolling
<qpm>
tx:<Jeremy_Rand> fluffypony: oh, you should have done that nick change but said that OneCoin is buying out Bitcoin next week
<fluffypony>
:-P
shesek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nikivi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
OneCoin is dead. Long live TwoCoin!
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
oleganza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nikivi has quit [Quit: irc]
BashCo_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
GAit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adlai>
one coin, two coin, red coin, blue coin
<qpm>
tx:<Jeremy_Rand> AlephCoin is infinitely better.
<andytoshi>
waxwing: not "one tx per block", the voldemort scheme requires a signature for every individual transaction, before it was merged
kyletorpey has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nikivi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<waxwing>
andytoshi: each block contains one canonical tx, right? i thought the individual txs were aggregated into that so that there's only one excess?
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<andytoshi>
waxwing: there's only one excess, but it's a sum of all the original excesses, and you need a signature on it (basically a multisignature of all the original transactors)
<andytoshi>
and absent interaction, the only way to have a multisignature is to have a bunch of separate signatures