00:00:57 I probably need go do some talks on some actually interesting technology. Too much attention is being sopped up by things which are a bit weak. 00:01:12 adam3us has joined #bitcoin-wizards 00:01:22 gmaxwell: such as? 00:01:31 gmaxwell: i'm afraid you're too competent 00:01:38 sipa: I've noticed a lot of these projects have far more non-tech people than tech... 00:02:03 The problem with ethereum and all altcoins discussion ignore a very basic truth. The concept of digital scarcity needs to be rare for any of us to succeed. As with FIAT currencies the confidence in the system is based on trust - every altcoin game, mistake and celebrity moment (Kayne West coins) affect the confidence in the entire ecosystem which as we saw last two weeks when rumours infect the system (mt gox) it change 00:02:11 "there are 2 types of people: those who actually achieve things, and those who try to take credit for it. Try to belong to the first group; there's less competition" 00:02:25 sipa: +1 00:03:05 austinhill: ethereum isn't an altcoin in that sense 00:03:24 antephialtic: any of the stuff we talk about in here? I dunno. I've been trying to decide what would make a good talk that ties togeather some of the things that have been interesting me in the last year or two. I think there is a coherent thread that runs through a lot of it, but I haven't quite figured out the structure. 00:03:35 austinhill: it's basically saying "if bitcoin had features xyz it'd be much better" and "bitcoin isn't going to implement that because risky" 00:03:38 petertodd: ethereum is several things... a TC script lang, a premine, and an alt 00:04:07 petertodd: the eth is an alt in the sense of starting its own PoW and scarcity race 00:04:44 adam3us: point is the fact that it's an alt is a side-effect of trying to raise money, which means the criticism of it re: dilution is misguided 00:04:48 petertodd: I do not see posts about merged mining by you to bitcoin-dev mailing list. 00:05:10 antephialtic: mostly on trustless systems, new cryptographic structures, I think I could actually explain my simple ZK proof for general purpose computation in a presntation, and then tie that into how that technology can let us build more powerful cryptosystems. 00:05:49 zooko: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03574.html 00:05:55 gmaxwell: "Zero Knowledge without moon math" 00:05:57 petertodd: concept level dilution i think - like litecoin is dilution or primecoin - its the same as that no? 00:05:59 petertodd: at a meta-communication level (which is all the media & blogosphere know how to report on) it's also don't trust in just bitcoin, because Dogecoin is different, or Litecoin is better, or ZeroCoin is more private and that infects the trust pool that can only carry so many memes before it throws all the cryptocurrencies into the "nice idea but tulip bubble" pile 00:06:20 or another thread is how simple things like hashlocked transactions in bitcoin can be combined with interactive protocols to achieve some very powerful results. 00:06:35 adam3us: that's the thing, ethereum is fundementally different underlying tech, whether or not that tech works is another question, but it's not concept dilution 00:07:42 antephialtic has quit 00:07:46 austinhill: yeah well, that's a comms problem - again, ethereum is meant to enable different things that bitcoin can't currently do, not true with dogecoin in a meaningful way 00:08:17 petertodd: eeehh. not clear there, I mean, nothing functionality wise I've seen them propose couldn't be softfork added to bitcoin (if it were clear that it were wise to do so!) 00:08:33 gmaxwell: sure, but is such a soft-fork going to happen? not likely 00:08:35 certantly it's not as overlapping as dogecoin. :) 00:08:40 petertodd: yeah so each alt has a hook; some of them are even interesting or plausible. ethereum is still an alt. it didnt have to be an alt, someone chose to make it an alt. 00:09:12 adam3us: meh, it'd end up being an alt due to the economics of this stuff - you gotta find a way to get money to pay devs 00:09:16 petertodd: if ethereum proved a more powerful script was both viable and useful, perhaps! adding functionality— at least functionality without nasty tradeoffs— is not _that_ controversial. 00:09:31 OP_X86 ftw 00:10:00 gmaxwell: sure, which is why I'd advise people to remember that bitcoin can do that if you're thinking about long-term ether investments, but bitcoin wouldn't do that without proof that it's a viable and useful thing to do - chicken and egg problem there 00:10:57 at least ethereum is actually building something innovative 00:11:04 whether it's a good idea is a wholly different question 00:11:23 adam3us: also, another case in point is my tree chains thing, which even though it looks like it can be a merge-mined addon to bitcoin, changes the economics - at the very least it can make pools irrelevant, so good luck getting support there 00:11:58 sipa: its a high quality hook :) "turing complete script!" the implications are endless. 00:12:07 sipa: like I said on -dev, it's unclear if this decentralized finance stuff in general has a use-case 00:12:36 didn't see that 00:13:06 sipa: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03895.html 00:13:33 ah, yes, i read that 00:13:46 petertodd: re: money to pay dev's - there is a way to do that. It's called VENTURE CAPITAL. They are good at funding risk, experimental technology. I know, I've been a VC and a cypherpunk who raised $200+ million : doing an alt-coin is not a good funding model for innovation 00:14:05 austinhill: there's no clear way to make a profit from creating these systems you realize... 00:14:19 austinhill: I was talking to a VC a few weeks ago actually; my advice was that the RedHat model *might* work 00:16:12 petertodd: I think you are wrong ;) the entire system needs to be distributed, not owned by anyone, trustless, open source and free with permissionless innovation as a core principles without an alt-coin & support bitcoin & blockchain — but there's trillions of dollars available for the person who figures out how to support the investment required to build that kind of ecosystem 00:17:52 The RedHat model isn't the right model, support doesn't work for this type of world 00:18:07 petertodd: i think the thing that worries me about alts is its not neutral, bitcoin bootstrapped; with new alts people suspect its a pump & dump; if it succeeds you dont know if you should trust the motives of the people pumping it.. (actually someone i know has the same reservation about bitcoin! that people talking up bitcoin are investors in bitcoin). but at least bitcoin succeeded with a big element of luck. 00:18:34 austinhill: OK, case in point: So I have this idea called tree-chains. Basically you make blocks into a binary tree, and you get a nice security/scalability trade-off - point is you can make systems with really high numbers of transactins/sec over the whole system. Now I could probably put this into practice if I had a team, especially if I could hire some SCIP experts, but that's expensive. So I get this VC capital, implement it and... um, ... 00:18:40 ... now what? It's open-source software, the only way I'll make money off of it is by selling support. Hence, the red hat model. 00:19:25 sipa: it's sad that there is not a trendy phrase for what scripts rough computational power is (well ignoring the disabled opcodes kinda breaking it)... ("FSM complete!" (which includes verification of NP witnesses)) 00:19:29 adam3us: honestly, meh. We can't fight this stuff with ta-taing people making alts; fight it by showing the public that the economics are silly and that the economics of bitcoin or whatever somehow does make sense. So go off an 51% attack some alts today and ruin them. 00:20:22 petertodd: about the sharded system, how do you maintain temporal consistency? bitcoin is very easy for this because each block comes in and it's very clear where a tx is located temporally. 00:20:28 petertodd: i guess if that works, and scip has a few problems as a building block, then it becomes valuable once bitcoin scaling starts to be an issue. 00:20:34 petertodd: and are you allowing new roots to be mined from the root of the top node itself? 00:20:47 tacotime_: ah! I think I have something really clever for that actually, which is a two-phase commit for transactions. 00:21:00 petertodd: On Jabber I'm mailto:austin@jabber.cc.de we can chat / OTR about this out of channel 00:21:37 tacotime_: So lets say we have a blockchain, where each block is notated as b^depth_age right? so the top block's genesis is b^0_0, next b^0_1, etc. 00:22:04 tacotime_: each block b^d has two children, marked b^{d+1} (left and right) 00:22:21 okay. 00:22:25 tacotime_: note how my notation is 2d when the actual structure is 3d... but anyway. 00:24:10 So if I want to spend an output at b^d_i, I can mark it spent at that subchain, then wait as subsequnt blocks "propagate" that spend information to b^{d-1}, b^{d-2} etc. until I'm at b^0. Now I can prove to a block on another part of the tree that the top-level block in common to both sides depends on that spend, and then record the other half of the transaction in the other block. 00:24:16 Ursium has joined #bitcoin-wizards 00:25:00 If the rule is that a block is made invalid if a higher block in the tree is also made invalid, I now know that re-orging one side is guaranteed to make the other side go away too, thus we have temporal consistency. 00:25:13 So your new roots verify new branching nodes of old blocks. 00:25:16 petertodd: sell the software at first 00:25:30 petertodd: thanks. 00:25:33 tacotime_: hang on, I didn't say anything about verification yet :) 00:25:34 petertodd: start at $10k for getting access on day 1 00:25:39 $9k for day 2 00:25:39 Ah, okay, sorry. 00:25:40 etc 00:25:53 (or something like that) 00:26:09 tacotime_: Assume for now that all miners are "honest" and all blocks contain valid transactions - see how I've guaranteed that at least the consensus will be consistent? 00:27:58 When you say propagate that spend information, are you saying they explicitly reference a tx in one of the shards of a former block? 00:28:32 tacotime_: well you can always make a compact proof via a merkle path right 00:28:55 Yes. 00:29:07 Guest53102 is now known as ageis 00:29:10 I see. 00:29:54 so a miner on one side of the tree can use that proof as proof that the transaction output was legitimately marked as spent on the other side, and that the block they're producing will be invalidated correctly if the top block is reorganized, thus keeping the temporal consistency 00:30:32 the issue however is ensuring that the miners on the other side are honest - with magical SCIP that'd be dead easy, just have them produce a SCIP proof that the rules were followed. in the non-moon-magic world it'll be harder 00:31:17 tacotime_: "Andrew's draft is rather damning" ← what draft? (I'm trying to catch up on this IRC channel, see.) 00:31:30 the other issue is the "data loss" one I explained earlier on -wizards, but at least there you can make the procedure for handling data loss economically neutral - ie track how many worth of value "entered" and "exited" that part of the tree and make sure no coins get illegitimately created out of thin air 00:31:41 zooko: http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf 00:32:03 * tacotime_ nods. 00:32:13 Does the tree have minimum difficulty at some point? 00:32:40 but... solve those problems and you've got a system with no arbitrary limit on transactions/sec, rather it has a limit based on economics/security where at some point the difficulty of some deep down tree is just so low that your coins may get destroyed by an attacker 00:32:57 petertodd, exactly what i was just thinking. 00:33:09 tacotime_: well, difficulty is an interesting questiion: looks to me that if you simply take the top difficulty, and divide it by two every step down, you actually make 51% attacks harder 00:33:18 Not a huge issue though, the system then scales with quantity of PoW being performed I guess. 00:33:28 petertodd, yes 00:33:54 tacotime_: the way that works is you make the rule be that blocks *must* alternate "sides", so left gets mined, then right, and so on. I'm still working through the details, but the way the math works is that applying, say, 10% of the hashing power to some part of the tree to attack that part becomes non-trivial in that case 00:33:56 To a point I guess, eventually at some level you can publish whatever 00:34:01 not impossible, but harder 00:34:07 Hmmm. 00:34:30 implementing blocks basically as binary search trees? 00:34:33 tacotime_: exactly! with SCIP moon-magic you wouldn't be able to publish garbage, but you might be the only miner who actually has the data, and thus are one HD failure from losing it and the coins 00:34:41 tacotime_: yes, hence "tree-chains" 00:34:51 that could be efficient. 00:35:02 I had proposed a marginally similar method for increasing bandwidth over the past couple of months, though the details I never really made public. 00:35:10 ens has joined #bitcoin-wizards 00:35:10 tacotime_: although remember that it's not like one block is a *whole* tree, rather each block and subblock adds to part of a tree in the shape of a binary search thing 00:35:10 I thought it was neat, vitalik didn't. 00:35:20 * tacotime_ nods 00:35:32 I found nsh and ens lost in #bitcoin discussing cut and choose protocols. 00:35:36 yeah, I proposed a ring of blockchains ages ago as a thought experiment 00:35:40 gmaxwell: lol 00:35:55 petertodd: ring of block chains? for local proofs of work? 00:36:03 (i was just pretending to do computer science while i picked people's pockets) 00:36:04 ens: local proofs of *validity* 00:36:08 My idea was to fragment the tx tree and keep it sorted by fees, and to make the verification of levels be responsibilities of subsequent blocks. 00:36:08 aha! 00:36:22 tacotime_: right, that's kinda similar 00:36:26 that actually fits into an idea i was coming up with for modelling a proof of work for Co-NP complete problems. 00:36:52 petertodd, the only issue is that for verification you need to wait a while, one level would be one block, two levels two blocks, etc 00:36:57 i think people actually underestimate how radical the idea of proof of work chains actually are in compsci. 00:36:59 Or you could you m-level trees. 00:37:04 tacotime_: my first ideas along those lines were fee related too, until I realized that the temporal consistency of the scheme made it possible to have coin amounts be arbitrary, no matter where in the tree the txout was 00:37:24 How so? 00:38:02 tacotime_: like I said, if you can get miners to make honest blocks, via SCIP moon-magic or something less strong, then it's ok to record a txout of any value based on a txout of the same value being marked spent in another part of the tree 00:39:07 tacotime_: fraud-proofing is an obvious way, I also proposed a much weaker "institutionalize fraud" scheme a while back here where you'd just use NI proofs to show the previous history of a coin was valid with some probability - mining to make new coins would be brute forcing those witnesses to make false proofs 00:39:19 s/proofs/witnesses/ 00:40:01 I guess I'd been thinking more simply than even that; I just thought that you could list the tx by number in subsequent blocks and just have each single one validated or invalidated based on the contents of the current or past blocks. 00:40:34 Right, but... how do you know the contents? 00:40:52 The trick after all is to *not* have to know the contents! 00:41:12 Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards 00:41:17 I guess you need to prove having verified or seen all the tx in some way. 00:41:43 Is that what you mean by SCIP moon-magic, I guess? 00:41:49 Now, an interesting thing here is with TXO commitments you can make relatively compact proofs that a given TXO remained unspent for some number of blocks. 00:42:19 yeah, SCIP basically means "I can prove to you I ran a verification program on the blockchain data proving that the txout was in fact real and unspent, and all prior txouts for it were similarly valid" 00:42:27 * tacotime_ nods. 00:42:49 SCIP proofs for programs that themselves check SCIP proofs are deep moon-magic that may not be actually possible. 00:43:13 SCIP is mostly this groups brand name for their ZK-SNARK stuff: http://www.scipr-lab.org/ 00:43:41 But, at least if every block is allowed to create some amoutn of inflation, you can prove *economic* honesty by just making a NI proof that would cost more to fake than the gains. 00:43:46 SNARKs for C: Verifying Program Executions Succinctly and in Zero Knowledge << holy crap :D 00:43:53 ens: magic isn't it 00:44:00 the voodoo variety 00:44:04 i must read this right now. 00:44:07 gmaxwell: yeah, what term would you suggest I use for what I'm talking about? 00:44:08 petertodd: this sounds like the problem of using sharding. each shard has to be merge mined, and then you end up not improving scaling (MM 10 shards, and you have to see all the traffic) 00:44:09 jcrubino has left #bitcoin-wizards 00:44:14 ens, there's a talk too that's worth watching 00:44:28 ens: You might want to go find the GGPR'12 paper which is what that moon math is based on. 00:44:41 Ursium has quit 00:44:42 adam3us: yeah, and since this is a tree, the sharding does improve scaling because you only pick some subset of the tree to listen to 00:45:02 adam3us: e.g. the rules in this system would be a given share can *only* mine some linear path down the tree 00:45:13 do you know if it addresses the case where a negative answer was found to the NP complete problem? 00:45:30 tacotime_: read the whitepaper on Altcoins - is this something that you want shared or feedback on? happy to do both, lots of good ideas in there 00:45:52 ens: these proofs are probabalistic, so they definitely don't say anything about NP completeness 00:46:23 austinhill: it's not my paper, gmaxwell passed it to me. As I'm an alt coin dev I'm obviously a little bit in dissent heh 00:46:27 ens: and really, if I understand correctly the accepted terminology is to refer to a *witness* instead of a proof - witnesses can lie 00:46:49 Given a C program, we produce a circuit whose satisfiability encodes the correctness of execution of the program. << this is exactly what i was researching before i came in here. 00:46:55 ens: what it does is proves the checking of a witness of NP execution, the scheme there has cryptographic soundness (any succinct system has at best cryptographic soundness) and perfect zero knoweldge. 00:47:28 petertodd: in this case where distributed computation is involved where nodes are not trusted that makes better sense. 00:47:50 petertodd: well it encods the proof for verifing that the witness does not lie. Though the scheme has only cryptographic soundness. meaning that by breaking the crypto you can make a false witness pass. 00:48:19 ens: no, there's a deep crypto reason for this: a ZK-SNARK witness always has some probability that an attacker could create a false witness, it's just stupidly unlikely 00:48:54 ens: when you burn out on the moon math you may like my (? it's not very original) moon-math free not at all succinct verifyable execution http://people.xiph.org/~greg/simple_verifyable_execution.txt 00:49:03 +1 00:49:21 No succinct scheme can have perfect soundness. There is a kind of wanky proof of this. 00:49:25 gmaxwell: right, I'm talking about how all this stuff is probabalistic, so it's not a proof in the traditional math sense directly 00:50:10 petertodd: some of the stuff in this space does have perfect soundness but it cannot have proofs which are sublinear in the transcript length. 00:50:39 gmaxwell: ah, good point 00:50:53 gmaxwell: not that linear would be terribly useful for tree-chains :) 00:52:10 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc has quit 00:56:26 gmaxwell is that yours ? 00:56:40 poggy: is what mine? 00:57:04 http://people.xiph.org/~greg/simple_verifyable_execution.txt 00:57:18 gmaxwell: i'm actually fairly shocked by that paper. 00:58:07 i thought doing something like this would be the keystone to creating something like a 3SAT coin. 00:58:39 Yes, I wrote that. The scheme is heavily inspired by the linked low-moon-math scheme for multiparty computation, but I'm not sure if what I'm describing there has been described by anyone else before (perhaps it has some weakness I haven't found yet; ... its a useful teaching tool regardless) 00:59:47 ens: 3sat coin is not so interesting, for one random 3sat problems are very easily solved by a hurestic solver, so you can just grind out problem examples until you get an easy one. ... but generally POW twiddling seems boring, it mostly seems to shift around constant factors in the incentives. 01:00:01 If you want to pow twiddle I have some sexier ideas. 01:00:23 but in general, I think pow is like debating bicycle color. :P 01:00:25 i just want to use it to make a distributed security checking device. 01:00:33 for formal verification of software 01:00:47 but takes on a form similiar to BTC. 01:01:09 but yeah, generation of random instances is another major hurdle 01:01:22 but it seems you've actually discussed the harder issues in that paper... 01:01:32 nice work man! 01:02:42 but you think the difficulty of the problems would flucuate too much for it to be stable as a digital currency? 01:03:29 well I think it enables an easy cheat. You grind your problem generator until you get an easy problem, and you're not even able to solve hard problems. 01:04:13 samesong has quit 01:05:17 yeah i thought those kind of things would have been an issue aswell, however i did think the problem that you've described in that paper would have been by a huge magnitude harder to solve. 01:05:56 Ursium has joined #bitcoin-wizards 01:09:18 i mean your solution to that problem seems like it represents a complexity class with NP and Co-NP as subsets linked by a common concept for probabilistic proof of work. I think you should consider editing the complexity zoo wiki :) 01:27:00 adam3us has quit 01:27:46 adam3us has joined #bitcoin-wizards 01:32:49 adam3us has quit 01:37:29 jtimon has quit 01:52:43 tacotime_ is now known as tt_away 02:11:29 mappum has quit 02:15:17 tt_away has quit 02:24:15 airbreather_1 has quit 02:27:14 mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards 02:28:49 mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 02:31:45 mappum_ has quit 02:35:57 mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 02:36:30 mappum_ has quit 02:37:07 mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 02:55:28 freewil has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:00:00 A programmer & cryptocurrency aspiring wizard recently asked me if his alt-coin was worth pursuing, I responded with this. I'd like the communities feedback if I'm directing him wrong : "GIVE UP ON THE ALT COIN DREAM. It's a scam and you should abandon it immediately. Whatever good ideas you have, or skills you develop in programming should be applied into a few areas of the startup ecosystem 1) Blockchain technolog 03:01:48 DON'T BOTHER TRYING is not exactly inspiring you know 03:04:41 and irc doesn't work like that, that cut off after "1) Blockchain technolog" 03:04:42 sorry, don't want to repost and pollute others feeds….. 03:04:43 pastebin.com is the goto place for random long irc rants 03:07:38 I'd like to see the rest of that rant. 03:08:00 +1 03:08:01 :jrmithdobbs Thanks for the refer: - for those interested here is what I think is a good link 03:08:03 http://pastebin.com/2kcsZ3uQ 03:08:40 austinhill, or http://0bin.net/ if you want to be all crypto-hip 03:09:23 Well, that makes your position clear! 03:09:28 ^-- austinhill 03:09:35 Hiya jgarzik. 03:09:49 jgarzik: omfg - so cool http://goo.gl/BHo8tB 03:12:10 Heh heh heh. 03:12:43 was I too harsch? or not opinionated enough? 03:13:25 * zooko laughs. 03:13:37 Tell us how you really feel! 03:13:49 So, I'm still reading this IRC log. 03:14:00 Coming from the Linus Torvalds school of engineering, you can rarely go wrong by roasting someone with a good, fact-backed flame. 03:14:03 I asked a few questions, made a few comments, and then my three children attracted my attention for pretty much the rest of the day. 03:14:05 austinhill: probably worth pointing out that if you have an idea that absolutely needs to be implemented by changing the way bitcoin works, you can always write it up for litecoin (or even dogecoin!) and get it implemented in a soft-fork 03:14:09 And they are now all asleep... 03:14:18 Oh wait, no they aren't. Their lights are still on. bbiab ☺ 03:14:27 hah 03:14:30 mappum_ has quit 03:14:37 austinhill: also worth mentioning that with just a bit more cleverness, most ideas can be done without forking anything at all 03:15:41 but I'm sorry petertodd correct me if I'm wrong, but you subscribed with the Mastercoin school of though that has it's own on-blockchain/off-blockchain innovation theories 03:16:22 (ps - everyone tells me your very clever petertodd) 03:16:34 austinhill: just because I'm their chief scientist doesn't mean I think they're way is the right way to do things! 03:16:56 austinhill: there's lots of options - the important thing is starting a brand new coin is very, very rarely the right way to go 03:17:10 :petertodd +1 03:18:09 well like Luke told Vader on Endor - "I see the good in you father, give in to the good side of the force"….. 03:18:27 fwiw I'd be inclined to point aspiring wizards to colored coins actually - it's a technology just simple enough to be accessible, yet doing it right isn't as easy as it looks 03:19:15 mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:19:57 (it's also useless) 03:20:08 Luke-Jr: why? 03:20:26 Let's be honest, colored coins was promoted in mid 90's by Adam Back & Steve Schear. Great idea, but impractical with todays' world. How can you do SPV verification or wallet recognition of colouring in today's blockchain world …. waste of time 03:20:26 petertodd: lack of a use case 03:20:48 Luke-Jr: that's debatable (seriously, I mean exactly that) 03:21:04 petertodd: it's only debatable if you can give an example 03:21:09 austinhill: the wise wizard will think of ways to solve those problems :) 03:21:28 until someone comes up with a use case, debating whether it's useful is silly 03:22:19 anything other than pure blockchain assets (ie, bitcoins) is inherently centralised and therefore can benefit from the higher efficiency of centralisation 03:22:29 Luke-Jr: it's a peice of accounting software - if someone manages to solve the social problem of making "shared issued by whatever" a useful thing, then colored coins can act as a convenient, low-overhead, way to make sure that digital asset is being moved around honestly 03:22:45 high-overhead* 03:22:51 essentially the big use-case of colored coins is in fault-tolerence 03:22:56 luke-jr: we dont' need a use care actually, just a practical discussion of throwing technology over the wall. Can you colour coins with a history & marker for other asset allocation / issuance : = YES 03:23:08 Luke-Jr: for the *users* of colored coins it's low-overhead, not high, the alternatives are high-overhead 03:23:13 austinhill: sure, you can. but there's no value to it. 03:23:31 petertodd: nonsense, a simple trading webapp is much lower overhead. 03:23:52 Also, colored coins (and similar things) give you the building block to take it to the next step and make genuine decentralized marketplaces, something only possible with digital assets. 03:23:52 Is this practical or implementable in todays world where there is no wallet recognition of colouring or registry of semantic colouring that is trust : NO 03:24:37 austinhill: does such a world exist where it makes sense? NO 03:24:40 austinhill: killerstorm is doing good work with ChromaWallet - it's close to a pure programming problem at this point 03:24:58 Luke-Jr: don't let you distaste of data in the blockchain cloud your judgement 03:25:06 tangible property inherently requires someone to defend it. ie, the State. therefore, it will always be centralised. 03:25:21 Luke-Jr: Adam3us and I believe there is way - but it's not alt coins and it's not attacking the blockchain 03:25:29 austinhill: how? 03:25:48 what good will a blockchain do, if you don't have someone to defend your right to possession? 03:26:22 austinhill: my tree-chains stuff above I'm working on specifically to make scalability less of a concern for things like colored coins and mastercoin 03:27:06 Luke-Jr: in the case of stocks the most likely social construct that would defend your right is consensus in some community 03:27:14 petertodd: do you have a write-up of tree-chains stuff? 03:27:23 eristisk has quit 03:27:30 Luke-jr: my jabber address is available & we are hosting a gathering of a large number of bitcoin core dev's in Silicon Valley for the next month. You are on our list, please reach out to Adam Back or I to come join us. We have VC funding and can compensate your travel budget 03:27:57 zooko: working on one: https://github.com/petertodd/tree-chains-paper <- not too much in digital form, but I want to get it presentable prior to the financial crypto conf 03:28:06 zooko: mostly see -wizards archives 03:28:18 austinhill: what time next month? 03:28:28 petertodd: thanks. 03:28:31 petertodd: in the case of stocks, your only recourse is a lawsuit; ie, State enforcement 03:28:54 I don't think I have time/attention-management to read the -wizards archives though! 03:28:59 Luke-Jr: no, publication of fraud can be a recourse as well in a world where reputations are valuable 03:29:08 zooko: grep -i tree-chains :P 03:29:24 petertodd: that only requires transparency, not decentralisation 03:30:05 Luke-Jr: strong transparency appears to work best with proof-of-publication, which requires decentralization 03:32:27 it's notable how I ran into the same problem with fidelity-bonded banking, where you need a proof-of-publication scheme for fraud-proofs if you want the whole thing to work 03:34:01 flotsamuel has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:41:52 tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:43:16 bebopzzz has quit 03:44:29 eristisk has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:45:13 eristisk has quit 03:46:10 eristisk has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:46:42 eristisk has quit 03:47:29 eristisk has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:48:23 eristisk has quit 03:49:09 samesong has joined #bitcoin-wizards 03:57:11 Well, you wizards, plus my children, are too much for me. I still haven't caught up on the IRC log from today, and now it is the time when I sleep! Fare well, wizards. 03:57:29 zooko: ha, later, say hi to the kids for me :) 03:57:34 ☺ 03:57:43 zooko: tell them a wizard said it :P 03:57:54 Heh heh heh. Definitely will. 03:59:51 shinybro_ has quit 04:02:51 flotsamuel has quit 04:03:11 zooko has quit 04:07:31 shinybro_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 04:09:48 mappum_ has quit 04:12:35 mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 04:16:29 zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards 04:19:49 Emcy has quit 04:24:27 justanotheruser is now known as just[dead] 04:27:23 antephialtic has joined #bitcoin-wizards 04:31:46 tacotime has joined #bitcoin-wizards 04:31:52 tacotime is now known as tacotime_ 04:35:14 mappum_ has quit 04:41:11 zooko has quit 04:43:39 c0rw1n has quit 04:44:42 roconnor has joined #bitcoin-wizards 04:45:18 tacotime_ has left #bitcoin-wizards 04:45:27 tacotime_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 04:49:30 shinybro_ has quit 04:53:29 tromp has quit 04:53:46 tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards 04:55:50 shinybro_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 05:03:40 tromp has quit 05:04:14 tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards 05:08:29 tromp has quit 05:40:01 tacotime_ is now known as tt_away 05:47:48 Fistful_of_Coins is now known as Fistful_of_Cigar 06:13:47 shinybro_ has quit 06:17:05 antephialtic has quit 06:18:53 shinybro_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 06:24:24 roconnor has quit 06:24:25 roconnor_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 06:27:20 wangbus_ is now known as wangbus 06:29:55 roconnor__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 06:30:08 freewil has quit 06:30:31 roconnor_ has quit 06:35:22 samesong has quit 06:36:22 roconnor has joined #bitcoin-wizards 06:36:24 roconnor__ has quit 06:43:49 roconnor_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 06:44:31 roconnor has quit 06:55:12 roconnor_ has quit 06:55:18 roconnor__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 07:01:13 nessence has joined #bitcoin-wizards 07:01:42 roconnor__ has quit 07:03:30 jgarzik: got SignatureHash() working as well as all the tx_(in)valid unittests in python-bitcoinlib pythonize branch 07:05:07 Also found another screwy edge case: FindAndDelete() can return an invalid CScript instance if you arrange for the signature being found - possible with the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug - to match part of a different PUSHDATA encoding. 07:05:41 Gotta get around to making up a test-case for that monster... 07:11:58 freewil has joined #bitcoin-wizards 07:23:27 samesong has joined #bitcoin-wizards 07:28:54 samesong has quit 07:31:25 qwertyoruiop_ is now known as qwertyoruiop 07:50:50 qwertyoruiop has quit 07:51:46 qwertyoruiop has joined #bitcoin-wizards 08:07:17 tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards 08:09:40 adam3us has joined #bitcoin-wizards 08:11:50 tromp has quit 08:12:49 nessence has quit 08:14:20 freewil has quit 08:15:39 shinybro_ has quit 08:20:48 freewil has joined #bitcoin-wizards 08:44:07 ielo has joined #bitcoin-wizards 08:44:42 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc has joined #bitcoin-wizards 08:48:54 MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-wizards 09:02:19 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc has quit 09:02:50 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc has joined #bitcoin-wizards 09:23:01 shinybro has quit 09:23:21 shinybro has joined #bitcoin-wizards 09:27:30 orperelman has joined #bitcoin-wizards 09:35:53 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc has quit 09:51:32 spin123456 has joined #bitcoin-wizards 09:51:32 spinza has quit 09:57:10 go1111111 has quit 09:58:34 go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-wizards 10:02:06 spin123456 has quit 10:02:29 adam3us has quit 10:03:28 freewil has quit 10:04:30 Sarchar_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 10:05:02 spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards 10:09:07 Sarchar_ has left #bitcoin-wizards 10:53:26 MoALTz_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 10:54:47 MoALTz has quit 10:55:37 e4xit has joined #bitcoin-wizards 11:14:02 go1111111 has quit 11:16:14 adam3us has joined #bitcoin-wizards 11:29:11 e4xit has quit 11:37:26 orperelman has quit 12:15:52 just[dead] has quit 12:18:09 TD has joined #bitcoin-wizards 12:18:43 adam3us has quit 12:19:43 orperelman has joined #bitcoin-wizards 12:19:47 adam3us has joined #bitcoin-wizards 12:20:42 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc has joined #bitcoin-wizards 12:20:56 just[dead] has joined #bitcoin-wizards 12:35:34 jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards 12:37:14 zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards 12:42:09 c0rw1n has joined #bitcoin-wizards 12:46:50 adam3us has quit 12:55:04 TD has quit 13:04:42 spinza has quit 13:05:47 spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards 13:24:36 qwertyoruiop has quit 13:25:14 qwertyoruiop has joined #bitcoin-wizards 13:27:57 spinza has quit 13:47:53 orperelman has quit 13:49:43 petertodd, cool 13:53:02 mappum has quit 13:57:18 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc has quit 13:57:42 <_ingsoc> _ingsoc has joined #bitcoin-wizards 14:19:54 HobGoblin has joined #bitcoin-wizards 14:20:16 HobGoblin is now known as Guest73215 14:23:22 gribble has quit 14:23:42 BitCoroner has quit 14:25:01 matrixfox has quit 14:25:03 austinhill has quit 14:25:06 <|Ryan52> |Ryan52 has quit 14:25:06 bobke has quit 14:25:22 bobke has joined #bitcoin-wizards 14:25:24 BitCoroner has joined #bitcoin-wizards 14:25:59 austinhill has joined #bitcoin-wizards 14:26:27 kinlo_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards 14:27:17