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
skyraider_ has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sdaftuar_ has quit [Changing host]
sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
CodeArtix has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
libertalis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Quit: Leaving]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Client Quit]
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
belcher has quit [Quit: Leaving]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Luke-Jr has quit [Excess Flood]
Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
stonecoldpat1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
stonecoldpat has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
wiz has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
wiz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
voxelot_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wiz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Luke-Jr has quit [Excess Flood]
Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wiz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit []
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Luke-Jr has quit [Excess Flood]
Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit []
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent_ has quit []
rocky68 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
rocky68 has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RedEmerald has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
RedEmerald has joined #bitcoin-wizards
btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nuke1989 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Myagui has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
Myagui has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
AaronvanW_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Tasoshi has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jcluck has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
cluckj has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jcluck has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cluckj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wiz has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
wiz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
HastaJun has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<aj>
Lightsword: if you had difficulty increased by holding back ntime, couldn't you just fork the chain prior to the artificial difficulty increase? you'd have a longer chain in three weeks' time
<bsm117532>
What's the point? Should be stated in the abstract.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, oh I thought that goes under Motivation
<bsm117532>
You've got a lot of very touch terms: "hard fork", "kill off", "lock in", "permanently disable"
<bsm117532>
And I'm still trying to figure out what you want to accomplish.
<aj>
Lightsword: if you keep merge mining after the first forced fake difficulty increase, merge-mined blocks are going to become very hard to find, but maybe that's okay i guess (4x difficulty means every block is 4x work, so you only need 1/4 (ish) of them...)
<Lightsword>
aj, I’m not sure on the exact parameters but the idea would be to over the year to increase the difficulty to make that chain have a lot more proof of work
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: I don't unerstand the first sentence of your motivation. Why does it require a headers change?
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, the goal is to do a hard fork that can’t be normally merged mined while ensuring there can’t be two viable chains
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, specifically this “There are serious issues with pooled mining such as block withhold attacks that can only be fixed by making major changes to the headers format.”
<bsm117532>
Yes that's the first sentence. Can you expound? I don't understand.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, basically you need a mask of sorts that can be kept secret from the miners by the pool in order to fix block witholding, and there’s no way to merge mine that with the existing headers format
<Lightsword>
that way the miners can’t know if a share would equal a block
<aj>
Lightsword: i think if you have two chains, each with X hashpower, but one chain has 4x the difficulty of the other, then the one with higher difficulty will only have about 60% of the work of the easier chain. (for every 4x difficulty block you find, there'll also be two 1x difficulty and one 2x difficulty, for 1.75x the work). should asymptotically approach twice the work as the difficulty factor inc
<aj>
reases i think
<Lightsword>
aj, maybe starting the timewarp off slowly at the beginning then increasing it over time would be best
Don_John has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: Could you start your BIP by stating concisely what the problem is, and what your proposed solution is? This still isn't clear to me.
<aj>
Lightsword: i wonder if an informational BIP about approaches to obsoleting the old chain when doing a hard fork would be better
<bsm117532>
Also, generally, for a BIP to get any attention it needs to have code associated with it, demonstrating the relevant feature.
<aj>
Lightsword: ie, these are the pros and the cons for each approach; rather than multiple "let's do it this way" bips, with one accepted and the others rejected
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, what part in particular do you think needs to be clarified, the problem I’m trying to solve is doing a non-merge minable hard fork while safely killing the previous chain(so that unupgraded clients can’t be defrauded)?
<bsm117532>
How can anything be "non-merge-mineable"?
<aj>
bsm117532: making it so anyone attempting to follow the old chain never sees any transactions with more than a couple of confirmations
<maaku>
You need to motivate killing the old chain
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, in particular there’s no way to implement a secret mask for the block withold fix that can be merge mined
<bsm117532>
Ok that's fine but it needs to be clarified in your draft.
<maaku>
If the goal is efficient merged mining, segwit nonce can do that
<Lightsword>
maaku, the goal of the merge mine is to prevent an increase in currency supply by creating two chains
<bsm117532>
Yeah I have a very different solution to block withholding attacks, maybe I'm not the best to comment on this...I need to understand your proposed solution to block withholding attacks, which seems to be implicit? What's this other solution? Is it specific to the merge-mined coin?
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: "maaku, the goal of the merge mine is to prevent an increase in currency supply by creating two chains" this does not make sense to me. Merge mining does not create two chains, nor an increase in currency supply.
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, it isn’t possible to fix block witholding without a hard fork right?
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, yes, the merge mining is intended to disable the other chain so it can’t be used
tromp_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: no comment on the hard fork question. My solution is too far out to decide. But I *think* I can see how to do it with a soft fork.
<Lightsword>
in the first hard fork stage
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, oh, if it can be done with a soft fork that BIP is pointless then :P
<Lightsword>
well mostly at least
<bsm117532>
Well, following the mechanism for segwit, any extension-block or similar proposal could extend block size via a soft fork.
<bsm117532>
It's asthetically ugly, but it works.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, oh, I thought you had a solution to block withholding that could be implemented as a soft fork
<bsm117532>
Yes. New addresses (a la segwit) specify that the verification data is in the extension block. No one talks about it because it's so ugly but it works.
<Lightsword>
in order to prevent block witholding you need to make a change that prevents a miner of knowing if a particular share would result in a block
<Luke-Jr>
[06:17:54] <maaku> If the goal is efficient merged mining, segwit nonce can do that <-- not really
<Lightsword>
ie the blinded hash
e4xit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: or change the reward structure to calculate rewards after everyone has seen all blocks.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, how would that help?
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Withholding works because of the competition that one block or the other "wins".
<bsm117532>
If there was a 50/50 split between simultaneously released blocks, and a penalty for delayed blocks, this fixes the incentive problem.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, I think we’re talking about different things, I’m talking about witholding block finding shares from pools
<Lightsword>
not selfish mining
<Lightsword>
block withhold is where the miner deletes the block finding share instead of sending it to the pool in order to hurt the pool
<bsm117532>
Doesn't really matter actually.
<Lightsword>
in order to do that they have to know if the share will result in the pool finding a block
<Lightsword>
that’s why you need a blind or secret that only the pool knows
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: sounds like you know more about pool operation than I do. Would be happy to hear your comments on the talk.
<bsm117532>
Maybe I'm missing something there.
<Lightsword>
oh, that has nothing to do with the block witholding I’m talking about
<Lightsword>
are you familiar with how stratum shares work?
<bsm117532>
Yes.
<bsm117532>
It very much has to do with block withholding.
<bsm117532>
But explain...
<Lightsword>
that talk is in regards to orphan rates/block races not block withholding
<Lightsword>
so most stratum servers never result in a block, they are used for determining the payout a miner will receive from the pool
<bsm117532>
No...the graph structure gives information about block withholding.
<Lightsword>
they have an arbitrary difficulty below network difficulty used to calculate how much the pool will pay out
<Lightsword>
so the miner will submit any shares to the pool that are above the stratum difficulty(including ones above network difficulty)
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<Lightsword>
now only those above network difficulty will result in the pool finding a block
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Lightsword>
so in order to do a block withold attack as a miner, you connect to a pool and only submit shares above stratum difficulty but below network difficulty, this means as far as the pool is concerned you never find a block, however you are still paid by the pool regardless because you are submitting stratum shares which the pool credits to your account
<bsm117532>
This is a problem of stratum server logic, not bitcoin.
<bsm117532>
Bitcoin can't solve that on behalf of stratum servers...
<Lightsword>
pools have shareloggers that credit all shares above stratum difficulty equally, so witholding a block finding share doesn’t really hurt the miner if the pool is a PPS pool
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, actually this can’t be solved without a change to bitcoin itself
<Lightsword>
the miner will always know ahead of time if the share they find will generate a block, because they can just calculate the difficulty of that share
<Lightsword>
in order to fix this a blind is needed to so that the pool can have a “secret” that the miner doesn’t know
<Lightsword>
the problem is there the block header format has to be changed in order to implement a blind
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: I don't think you've adequately explained WHY that is the case in your draft. (I suspect it's true)
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
And again code speaks louder than words.
<bsm117532>
Without code your BIP will be ignored.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, I mean, do you think it’s neccesary for me to go into detailed background on how a block withold attack works?
GAit has quit [Client Quit]
<bsm117532>
Yes.
<bsm117532>
This is not common knowledge.
<bsm117532>
And even if it were, devs are not miners are not pools, and they don't necessarily know each other's issues.
<Lightsword>
ok, I’m kind of assuming it was….it’s comes up on google at the top
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Lightsword>
anyways the BIP doesn’t really have anything to do with the block withold fix directly so much as how to safely make headers format change that could fix block witholding
<bsm117532>
It's always best to assume you have to explain everything to your audience. Make a logical argument starting from very basic assumptions, not stackexchange posts. Carry through a logical argument that doesn't require reference to external literature/sites.
<Lightsword>
there are other format changes my proposal applies to
<bsm117532>
Yeah I could spend days chasing down links, but you will get a lot further by explaining it an understandable way without making me chase down those links. ;-0
blkdb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: Put the research work on yourself, not the reader.
blkdb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blkdb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
blkdb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, I mean that’s technically only one of a number of reasons for my BIP vs luke’s regular merge mine hard fork, I mentioned it only because it’s the most obvious one
<Lightsword>
the actual fix for block withholding would be separate, my BIP is just describing a way to go about actually activating the hard fork
sparetire has quit [Quit: sparetire]
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: you've not provided enough background for the casual reader to understand. We all have different backgrounds/biases etc. Even after talking to you on IRC, I can only guess at what you're getting at.
<bsm117532>
I think you're saying that miners who satisfy the bitcoin target can screw over the pool. And you want bitcoin to enforce not screwing over the pool.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, basically I want bitcoin to make a change so that pools can prevent themselves from being screwed over by their miners
<bsm117532>
My braids proposal is a way of having a more advanced merge-mining, possibly as a soft fork. Anyway needs more work.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, I think you are still missing the point, the reason for the merge mine is just to have a method to disable the previous fork, it’s specifically done as a hard fork to force clients to upgrade so that the header format change can then be triggered later
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: If a miner can refuse to pass a winning block to the pool, then that's a serious flaw in the pool design, and why should bitcoin fix it for them?
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, because it’s impossible to fix it without changing the header format with a hard fork
<bsm117532>
I'm clearly missing the point. I don't understand "previous fork". Are you talking about a bitcoin fork or a share-chain fork? Or something else?
<bsm117532>
Saying "header" doesn't help me understand.
<bsm117532>
I'd guess that pools hand miners a hash to work on, but not the mempool of transactions. So miners can't take a successful bitcoin hash and build a corresponding block.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, yeah, stratum is an overlay protocol that gives them enough information to try and create a block
<bsm117532>
So I don't understand how a miner can pass a wining block bypassing the pool.
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: Okay, then one point is to explain how a miner can create a winning block from the information from stratrum.
<Lightsword>
they can’t steal the block for themselves, they can however just delete that winning block and never inform the pool
<bsm117532>
I don't understand why they would do that...
<Lightsword>
to screw over a pool
<Lightsword>
competitor for instance
<bsm117532>
They're only hurting themselves.
<Lightsword>
there are a lot of pay per share pools where they wouldn’t hurt themselves at all
<Lightsword>
btcchina f2pool antpool
<bsm117532>
But that competitor could have allocated those mining resources toward *actually* winning BTC. How is your strategy better?
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Lightsword>
because it they get the same profit but kill their competitor
GAit has quit [Client Quit]
<Lightsword>
pool pays the same amount for every share regardless of if the share would find a block
<bsm117532>
They don't get the same profit. They've allocated x% toward killing their competitor, and that's x% profit they're not making. It should be a wash.
<Lightsword>
dropping a single share doesn’t make any meaningful difference
<Lightsword>
if the pool payout out for every share they only lose the share they choose not to submit
<Lightsword>
which is basically nothing
<Lightsword>
since miners find shares every few seconds
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: So you need to clearly demonstrate the point you're trying to make.
fn2187 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mesmer has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<bsm117532>
e.g. winning a share and trashing it.
<Lightsword>
normally when a miner finds a share they simply upload it to the pool
<Lightsword>
the miner knows if the share would result in a block being found
<Lightsword>
a miner can choose not to submit the share if they want to
<Lightsword>
there’s nothing stopping them
<Lightsword>
for pools with a pay per share payment model each individual share is not really worth anything
<Lightsword>
to the miner
<bsm117532>
But why would they do that? They're decreasing the profit of the pool, and decreasing their own profit.
<Lightsword>
but it’s worth a whole block to the pool
<Lightsword>
again, that depends on the payout method the pool uses
<Lightsword>
pay per share pools don’t pay out any more or less if they find a block or not
<Lightsword>
PPLNS pools do
<bsm117532>
Ok, that distinction needs to be made, clarified, and explained.
<bsm117532>
And code needs to accompany your BIP to demonstrate the change you want to make.
fn2187 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Lightsword>
yeah, that is the type of attack I am talking about
<smooth>
bsm117532> But why would they do that? They're decreasing the profit of the pool, and decreasing their own profit <= the reason is that even without PPS the effect on the miner's own profit may be negligible
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: Ok, can you summarize the content of that blog in a paragraph to introduce your BIP?
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, the BIP isn’t actually presenting a fix for block witholding though….it’s presenting a way to deploy a fix
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: then it needs a lot more work. ;-)
<bsm117532>
Also, code.
<bsm117532>
BIPs should always accompany a PR or code to demonstrate the idea.
<Lightsword>
well it’s not something I would want to try and code before there is a discussion on it since it’s reasonably complex
<bsm117532>
Ok, so have the discussion. This a reasonable place to do so, though #bitcoin-dev might be better.
<bsm117532>
Sorry I couldn't help further, I don't understand the subtleties.
<Lightsword>
yeah, I guess it’s one of those things you have to be somewhat familiar with how pools work to understand
<bsm117532>
Yes, but a BIP shouldn't assume that.
<bsm117532>
It helps your argument to explain it. :-)
<smooth>
the question of whether it even should be fixed is also interesting
<Lightsword>
if I was presenting a BIP with an actual fix I might agree but I’m only presenting a deployment method that could be used by a potential hard fork to fix it
<Lightsword>
smooth, true, there is an argument to be made there
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: Well you need to clearly state the problem, clearly state the parameters of a hypothetical solution for which your deployment method works, and then describe the method. Anything can be done with a hard fork. This is not news.
<Lightsword>
I’m not sure what I’m missing though, the problem is “There is a high risk of there being two viable chains if we don't have a way to permanently disable the original chain.” in a hard fork
<bsm117532>
Define "chain". Are we talking about Bitcoin's blockchain? (sorry I've been buried in p2pool for a while so have 2 chains in mind)
<smooth>
again there is an interesting question whether that should be fixed
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, yes bitcoin’s blockchain
<bsm117532>
Ok I'm beginning to agree with smooth. Explain why this needs to be fixed?
<smooth>
i was commenting on two different questions fwiw
<Lightsword>
well, one argument would be that since a large portion of the network is private farms, you wouldn’t want them to be able to attack smaller private pools
<bsm117532>
Ok. Everyone, explain yourselves. ;-P
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, but even ignoring the block witholding thing entirely then there can be other reasions for making a headers format change
<smooth>
shuffling of deck chairs comes to mind
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: I don't understand the mechanism by which a "private farm" attacks a smaller "private pool" nor the distinction between "farm" and "pool" nor the significance of "private"....
<Lightsword>
…
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Lightsword>
by private farm I mean one controled by a single group, with a private pool being a pool not open to the public
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm trying to help you improve your idea, FWIW.
supasonic has quit [Quit: Leaving]
PRab has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<bsm117532>
Bitcoin is based in proofs. A farm or pool generally is not based on proofs but on trust. And well...you get what you ...trust...I guess.
<Lightsword>
pool is based on proofs
<bsm117532>
But apparently there's a way to defaud it that can only be changed by changing bitcoin. This needs to be clarified. You didn't explain it.
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: The only pool based on proofs that I know of is p2pool. So you'll have to explain.
<Lightsword>
all pools use share validation
<Lightsword>
they just dont’ have a sharechain
<Lightsword>
they have a share database
<bsm117532>
If you're trusting some random server to calculate your share... well...
<bsm117532>
Don't really care the details, there are no proofs. The only way you get proofs is a sharechain.
<Lightsword>
well….you can double check to make sure they are crediting the shares properly, since you are submitting the shares
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Lightsword>
on the other hand it is possible for pools to defraud miners, but that’s nothing new
<Lightsword>
most major pools have repuations at stake
<Lightsword>
and all miners would leave if they were discovered to be defrauding miners
<bsm117532>
So then, if you're asking bitcoin to add something that doesn't actually fix the problem (because pools can still defraud miners) then you're barking up the wrong tree.
<bsm117532>
I gather your idea is a method to discover fraud, not a method to prevent it. no?
<Lightsword>
no, by using a blind you could in theory entirely prevent block witholding
<Lightsword>
if a miner doesn’t know which share would generate a block they can’t withhold it
<bsm117532>
Okay, you haven't adequately explained that.
<bsm117532>
2 hours later and I'm still not sure what you're after. So, you have some work to do. ;-) Explain the problem, explain the solution, point to some code that demonstrates the solution, those are the bare minimum requirements. Then follows a lot of debate...
PRab has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<bsm117532>
Code is very, very important. If you can't be bothered to code it up yourself, why do you expect that someone else would? One always encounters details while coding that are important...
<Lightsword>
uh, because we’re looking at various theoretical ways of doing hard forks that would make them safer, and something like what I’m proposing is reasonably complex to implement(but would likely be implemented as part of other planned hard-fork work)
<Lightsword>
if it is supported by other developers
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Still requires code, most importantly of all. You can't expect others to do work for you, and the experts are already coding and have their own opinions.
<bsm117532>
If what you're talking about is a safer way to do hard forks, then divorce it from the specific problem you've discussed so far, and concentrate on explaining that problem, and its solution.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, that’s what I’ve been trying to do all along….
<bsm117532>
Ok, then forget about the shares and pool?
<bsm117532>
I got lost trying to understand how centralized pools work.
<bsm117532>
It should be explainable without that.
PRab has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<Lightsword>
yeah, that really has nothing to do with my BIP proposal, the block withhold issue is just an example of why one would want to roll out a non-merge mine compatible hard fork
<Lightsword>
basically my idea is to stage a “soft HF” before a “header HF”
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: FWIW there's a tremendous amount of disagreement on the contents of that talk.
<Lightsword>
I know…I was there
<bsm117532>
Lightsword: Ok then frame it that way an divorce it from pools? There's nothing bitcoin can do about the operation of centralized pools. They may operate one way today but it will be different tomorrow.
<Lightsword>
bsm117532, I literally only mention pools once in it as an example of why one would want to do that type of hard fork
<bsm117532>
Ok Lightsword I'm headed to bed...good luck, I hope I was helpful! (And I still don't understand)
<Lightsword>
not too much but ok :P
<bsm117532>
hah I tried :-P
<Lightsword>
thanks for trying at least
<bsm117532>
no prob. good luck!
PRab has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PRab has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PRab has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
N0S4A2 has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.4]
N0S4A2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has quit [Quit: Leaving]
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
fluffypony has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
fluffypony has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paci has quit [Quit: Leaving]
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
paci has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
malte has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
malte has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jannes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Luke-Jr has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
luke-jr_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
luke-jr_ has quit [Excess Flood]
luke-jr_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
bliljerk101 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bliljerk101 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Quit: Leaving]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
laurentmt1 is now known as laurentmt
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
jcluck has quit [Quit: Leaving]
jcluck has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cluckj has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jcluck is now known as cluckj
r0ach has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
p15x has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<ThomasV>
!seen gmaxwell
<gribble>
gmaxwell was last seen in #bitcoin-wizards 2 weeks, 0 days, 5 hours, 42 minutes, and 27 seconds ago: <gmaxwell> tromp: "(this also makes Cuckoo Cycle, unlike Hashcash, immune from Grover's quantum search algorithm)" not so-- the grover speedup is fully general and applies to any blockbox function.
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi1111w has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Guest43031 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luke-jr_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Guest43031 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Noice has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
luke-jr__ has quit [Excess Flood]
luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Noice has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nuke1989 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
seg has quit [Quit: kuwabara kuwabara]
seg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Eliel has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Eliel has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Eliel has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Eliel has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi1111w has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi1111w has quit [Changing host]
luigi1111w has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bliljerk101 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bliljerk101 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
instagibbs has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
supasonic has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
sparetire has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skyraider_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skyraider_ has quit []
luke-jr__ has quit [Excess Flood]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
neha has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
wangchun has quit [Quit: leaving]
wangchun has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
tachys_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Cory has quit []
Guest36311 is now known as amiller
amiller has quit [Changing host]
amiller has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Cory has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
luke-jr__ is now known as Luke-Jr
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi1111w has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
luigi1111w has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi1111w is now known as Guest52232
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
Guest52232 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
luigi11110 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi11110 has quit [Changing host]
luigi1111w has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi11110 is now known as luigi1111w
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Yoghur114 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dgenr8 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
rgrant has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Guyver2 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
mrkent has quit []
AaronvanW_ has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
danielsocials has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]