00:19:33 ffs 00:19:39 bought a cable modem 00:19:41 no coax cable 00:21:59 nessence has joined #bitcoin-wizards 00:28:16 jtimon_ has quit 00:54:24 fagmuffinz has quit 01:20:13 mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards 02:24:08 mappum has quit 02:59:48 merged mining attack I hadn't considered : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=394388.0 03:01:42 somone solo mining altcoin could double-count proof-of-work by merge mining the fraud chain against their solo blocks 03:06:32 maaku: namecoin ended up deploying a specific defense against this 03:06:42 that requires the namecoin chain to be at a particular position 03:09:49 gmaxwell: i'm aware of that one - it protects against having multiple auxblock committments in the same coinbase 03:10:11 but the twist here is namecoin merged mined against namecoin 03:10:45 so the attacker has the choice of using the outer block or the inner block 03:11:06 maaku: wouldn't that only be an issue in practice if the value of NMC were much higher? 03:12:26 warren: eh? it depends on the size of the double-spend you are trying to make 03:13:24 Niko_B has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:13:30 Get some easy bitcoins all you need is a web browser http://t.co/RFLekya7Hc 03:13:37 the fact that you can build up he public chain, while double-counting work towards a secret attack violates some security assumptions 03:14:13 * maaku needs to learn how to use +o 03:14:13 maaku: oh I don't think you can mergemine namecoin against namecoin. 03:14:20 warren has kicked Niko_B from #bitcoin-wizards 03:15:07 gmaxwell: yeah i'm not certain if it'd actually work.. but this wasn't something I'd previously thought about 03:15:09 maaku: if you can thats dumb and should be fixed, but its a purely academic attack right now since you'd have to forgo substantial bitcoin income. 03:15:15 and it would have worked in the system I was designing 03:15:22 it's easily fixed though 03:15:26 should be trivial to fix if so— just don't accept non-mergedmined blocks. 03:16:42 yeah 04:46:10 Emcy has quit 05:07:08 OneFixt has quit [NOTE: There is a gap in the logs because I was wiring my fileserver into my surround sound system and forgot that the logger was running on it. Sorry --Andrew.] 07:10:42 brisque: it could be made possible with some modest design changes. 07:11:00 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0 07:15:00 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc (~ingsoc@unaffiliated/ingsoc/x-8595135) has quit (Quit: leaving) 07:16:15 gmaxwell: that's interesting. for old blocks that would presumably get resource intensive though. 07:17:27 hm? 07:17:49 brisque: I would only expect nodes to retain the data structure as of the tip. 07:18:00 (to reorg they would keep undo data, like we do for blocks) 07:20:06 yep, I follow. 07:20:37 at this point I'm convinced that you've written a post on the forum about every topic conceivable, it's just buried in bitcointalk nonsense. 07:28:44 yeah, agreed, brisque - it would be nice to organize all of gmaxwell's forum posts into a coherent reference :) 07:29:19 I just don't have time nor focus to sift through all the forum crap 07:30:49 CodeShark: I'd read that, maybe a coffee table book of failed altcoins too 07:33:50 I've actually considered hiring someone to do that. 07:34:00 (to go index everything I've written and make summaries) 07:35:31 damn, I was getting excited for the coffee table book. 07:37:43 gmaxwell: provided all of your 3000 posts aren't almost BIPs in length, I'd be happy to do that though if you wanted. they're usually quite interesting reads unto themselves. 07:39:46 gmaxwell: I particularly enjoy that you used interrobangs in 2011. 07:54:40 andytoshi: nothing important was said anyway, just me being impressed by gmax'wells crazy punctuation.