16:06 < chainhead> It doesn't actually do what they say or what their spec says and they refuse to change it
16:06 < Emcy_> not really. The stupid forks have already been shown to have multiple showstoppers
16:06 < gmaxwell> notmike: After ver went off on me telling me that Craig wright is satoshi, I told him that if he gets me a signature with the keys up to block 9 which wright claims to control, that I'll leave bitcoin forever.
16:07 < gmaxwell> notmike: ver said it was interesting and he'd look into it then nothing else.
16:07 < betawaffle> chainhead: hahaha
16:07 < Emcy_> its likely they are the only group of people in the world at this time who have both the will and competence to develop bitcoin
16:07 < chainhead> How about Ver + Loaded trade, Gün Sirer made a post recently that implies they will do an atomic swap
16:08 < chainhead> I would like it if luke-jr could act as escrow for OTC trades on 148/pow-switch
16:09 < phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, kek
16:09 < notmike> If only there were a way to crowdsource a massive amount of hashrate.
16:10 < wirehead> that roger ver / craig wright camp is so sleazy
16:10 < cidlc> is poloniex still the best exchange for bitcoin?
16:10 < Emcy_> do you think theyll fuck off forever if they lose
16:10 < chainhead> What's weird about them being sleazy is they are not very self aware about it
16:11 < chainhead> Like I think guys like chjj know that BU is just a clusterfuck but somehow they just turn a blind eye and think oh that's the other guy
16:11 < Emcy_> i mean running a scam is an opportunity cost for the other scams you could be running
16:11 < chjj> chainhead: not sure where you're getting your info about me, but i've been opposed to BU since day 1.
16:11 < chainhead> That's my point
16:12 < chainhead> Oh these guys are bad when they are behind BU but then good when they are behind NYA
16:12 < chjj> chainhead: what members of the BU team are working on NYA?
16:12 < chainhead> Somehow Tom Zander magically mutates into a hero when Purse receives BitMain Funding
16:13 < chjj> chainhead: purse received no funding. it received btc donations from several different miners.
16:13 < chainhead> Sorry not funding, "donations"
16:13 < chjj> chainhead: tom zander, a hero? what?
16:14 < chjj> chainhead: yes. donations. i.e. no one making donations receives equity or control over any project we're working on.
16:14 < chainhead> It's all just a big coincidence
16:14 < betawaffle> tom zander seems to be a dumbass
16:14 < petertodd> chjj: Gün Sirer's thing apparently requires sewit to work IIRC...
16:14 < petertodd> chainhead: ^
16:14 < chainhead> I noticed he said it benefited from malleability fix but claimed it did not require it
16:15 < chjj> petertodd: which thing? bitcoin-ng?
16:15 < petertodd> chainhead: oh, I could be wrong, just skimmed it enough to notice the "novel contribution" for how it avoids replay is silly
16:15 < chainhead> cross chain atomic swap with Loaded
16:15 < petertodd> chjj: ^
16:15 < chainhead> http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/07/11/atomic-transfer/
16:16 < chjj> got it
16:16 < gmaxwell> chjj: Thanks for disclosing the payments to purse; it's refreshing after the denials and redirections.
16:17 < chjj> gmaxwell: it was already publicly announced. not a secret.
16:17 < notmike> gmaxwell: don't offer to remove yourself from a power position, you help build bitcoin. Roger Ver is just a dude with money. You gotta flex on him in the lambo next swanky convention you're at.
16:18 < chainhead> shit i forgot to cache https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ng
16:18 < gmaxwell> notmike: it's not an offer when it can't be collected; and in bizarro universe where wright were the real deal I'd run for the hills. 
16:18 < notmike> Like have someone drive the other lambo behind it.
16:18 < chjj> gmaxwell: this took place after your asicboost propaganda. you know, the move you were saving in the event of a BU hardfork, but decided to play on me and joseph instead.
16:18 < chainhead> lol
16:18 < gmaxwell> lol
16:19 < gmaxwell> My post had nothing to do with you and poon.
16:19 < chjj> gmaxwell: how long was blockstream hanging on to that move? joseph asked adam when he invited us to meet with him, and he just kind of trailed off.
16:19 < chainhead> AXA told him to do it right chjj
16:19 < chainhead> It was all a grand bilderberg plot
16:19 < chjj> gmaxwell: really? is that why you explicitly blocked the extension block commitment in the coinbase?
16:19 < gmaxwell> chjj: I knew about the bitmain implemention for about three weeks, and I posted to preempt a much more pyric post by other people that I'd discused it with.
16:20 < gmaxwell> chjj: ... lol
16:20 < chjj> gmaxwell: the implementation of the merkle collision optimization? there's no way anybody actually implements that.
16:20 < chjj> gmaxwell: you can't just swap leaves around in a bitcoin merkle tree willy nilly.
16:20 < gmaxwell> chjj: I'd never seen your document, I already posted that I would not look at it because you were not going to create a BIP... and I didn't.
16:20 < gmaxwell> if you increment an identifer it's going to end up colliding, thats why there are bips.
16:21 < cidlc> Which exchanges do you guys use for bitcoin?
16:21 < chjj> gmaxwell: asicboost is probably being used, but not through the means you're suggesting.
16:21 < chainhead> cidlc localbitcoins
16:22 < cidlc> Been scammed before?
16:22 < gmaxwell> chjj: You apparently don't understand the optimization. You merely need to grind something on the left (e.g. coinbase) and on the right.  it is very easy to setup so that there are 9 independant transactions in the right side of the tree, and virtually all blocks meet that constraint already.
16:23 < chainhead> cidlc many trades, some attempted to scam but it was never too hard to figure out
16:23 < chjj> gmaxwell: you weren't targetting extension blocks? is that why you were in this very channel laughing and saying "lol poon is acting like he's not complicit in this"
16:23 < gmaxwell> to find a 32 bit collision you need a bit over 2^16 variations which you can get via 256 left grinds and 6 permuted txn on the right.
16:24 < chjj> gmaxwell: you know damn well you wanted joseph out of bitcoin
16:24 < chainhead> Was jcp even in bitcoin?
16:24 < gmaxwell> joseph has almost never been in bitcoin! he's a ghost.
16:24 < chainhead> He took a very high paying position with an Ethereum ICO
16:24 < chjj> chainhead: he invented lightning in case you forgot
16:24 < gmaxwell> I have begged him to be involved in Bitcoin for years.
16:25 < chjj> gmaxwell: ha, well let's ask joseph. i think he has a different take on how you treated him.
16:25 < notmike> Please don't grind the bitcoins, which don't exist.
16:25 < gmaxwell> and never got him to get involved.. AFAIK all I'm aware of him doing was writing the lightning paper with tadje.  Which is great and all but why the heck would I wnt him out?
16:25 < chainhead> I know he wrote some papers and that the actual development is being done by others like roasbeef
16:25 < cidlc> Any of you heard of the Pillar ICO?
16:26 < gmaxwell> (years = about two, which is the whole time I knew he existed)
16:26 < gmaxwell> chjj: going back to your earlier, I don't see how how you connect comments with "targeting extension blocks"
16:27 < gmaxwell> chjj: you're just nuts if you think I was targeting you by also incrementing the commitment ID and colliding with you, first that wouldn't do squat to you.  Secondly, we both just did the natural thing, and since you REFUSED to take your work to an open collaboration process ID collisions were basically guarenteed.
16:27 < gmaxwell> I was honestly completely unaware of it until greg sanders pointed it out to me.
16:28 < gmaxwell> E.g. my own employee, and as soon as he did I responded to my own post and said it would be changed.
16:28 < gmaxwell> AFAIK this was before you even noticed it.
16:29 < cidlc> What are you talking about? lol
16:29 < chjj> gmaxwell: you're saying you just incremented it? by one? that's funny, i think i incremented it by more than one (?). i'd have to check, but it sounds like you're shoveling more bullshit to deny this.
16:30 < Char0n> cidlc, pillar is ethereum and off-topic here.
16:30 < cidlc> oh ok
16:30 < gmaxwell> wtf?
16:30 < cidlc> everyone here is a hodler
16:31 < gmaxwell> chjj: You should take a breath and listen to yourself.
16:31 < chjj> gmaxwell: what are you saying? why did you require that second arbitrary commitment ID to be a valid segwit commitment?
16:31 < chjj> gmaxwell: why was that there?
16:32 < gmaxwell> What?!
16:32 < chjj> gmaxwell: alright, if you want to play dumb, i can find the post
16:32 < gmaxwell> The idea was that you could provide a segwit commitment or an explicitly incompatible with segwit commitment.
16:32 < gmaxwell> chjj: You need to begin acting a bit more professionally.
16:32 < gmaxwell> chjj: you are treating me with an extreme level of disrespect at the moment.
16:33 < chjj> gmaxwell: you're not deserving of respect. you're the most dishonest person i've ever met.
16:34 < gmaxwell> chjj: You are saying this because ... you cannot believe that we both would have managed to pick the same non-segwit ID number? Come on.
16:34 < chjj> gmaxwell: no, for a number of reasons. primarily because you held onto a political move for a year, waiting to play it on someone.
16:35 < gmaxwell> It's absurd, especially because picking the same ID number caused no harm; and because within a day when I found out that it was the same number I immediately, without you asking, posted that I'd change it.
16:35 < chjj> gmaxwell: you realize adam basically told me and joseph that was the case, right?
16:35 < gmaxwell> chjj: for a year? what are you talking about?
16:35 < betawaffle> this is such a weird conversation
16:36 < gmaxwell> chjj: then adam was confused or dishonest.  Because I know exactly when I realized this issue may exist with bitmain, it was at a lunch with Charlie Lee where I was explaining asicboost, after discussing activation of segwit in litecoin.
16:36 < lemmings> they should have a beer together ;-)
16:36 < pigeons> yeah take a break, re-read the emails and try later more calmly
16:36 < gmaxwell> chjj: after than I went back and connected logic probes to an R4 miner (which I don't believe even had shipped a year ago!)
16:37 < gmaxwell> And the miner is still sitting on my desk, as we speak.
16:37 < betawaffle> gmaxwell: when this is over, you owe the channel some context
16:37 < gmaxwell> betawaffle: I am as befuddled as you are I think.
16:37 < betawaffle> chjj: then can you provide context?
16:37 < gmaxwell> betawaffle: chjj is claiming that I somehow knew of the bitmain segwit asciboost concern for a year. Based on supposidly some conversation he had with someone else.
16:38 < betawaffle> ahhh
16:38 < betawaffle> gmaxwell: what would be the problem if you did?
16:38 < chjj> gmaxwell: no. i'm claiming you were waiting to drop this "segwit prevents obscure optimization in asicboost revelation" for a while
16:38 < gmaxwell> He claims that that I posted it at the time to smear their extension block proposal.
16:38 < Emcy_> https://pulpcovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/22993501-lf.jpg gmax every day
16:38 < gmaxwell> chjj: As I said, it was a completely new idea to me a couple weeks before the post.
16:38 < chjj> you were saving it in the event of a BU hardfork. understandable. when joseph and i dropped extension blocks, you got scared, and changed your plan.
16:39 < gmaxwell> chjj: and there are people here which can confirm that I told them about it a few weeks before the post (and before any of your announcement)
16:39 < chjj> i guess it works, because it applies to _any_ proposal that does not commit to txids in the coinbase.
16:39 < gmaxwell> for example,
16:39 < betawaffle> chjj: you seem to be on the conspiracy theory side here
16:39 < betawaffle> ie. claiming motives
16:39 < chjj> betawaffle: that would be the case if we hadn't already heard this from the horse's mouth (adam)
16:39 < gmaxwell> petertodd: Can you confirm that I told you about the concern that segwit was incompatible with optimized asicboost just a few weeks before my mailing list message on the subject and not before then?
16:40 < chainhead> Should have opentimestamped it
16:40 < betawaffle> chjj: and what's adam's relationship to this?
16:40 < gmaxwell> chainhead: wouldn't show it wasn't known earlier.
16:40 < betawaffle> can't prove non-existance
16:40 < chjj> betawaffle: he called us in for an in person meeting about a week or two after we released extension blocks, asking us to pitch something for him.
16:40 < chainhead> You will never convince the Roger Ver faction of any facts, they can invent conspiracies faster than you can state facts
16:41 < chjj> betawaffle: joseph confronted him and said, "you were saving that for BU, weren't you?"
16:41 < gmaxwell> chjj: what did he ask you to pitch for him?
16:41 < betawaffle> chjj: who is "him" in this case? adam?
16:42 < chjj> gmaxwell: 32mb extension blocks, optionally verifiable. similar to a decentralized sidechain with multisig pegs.
16:43 < chjj> gmaxwell: i thought it was just an idea he had and wanted to share, but the impression we later got is that this was not something _he_ wanted to do, but something he wanted _us_ to do on his behalf.
16:43 < betawaffle> adam wanted you do do extension blocks?
16:44 < chjj> betawaffle: no, he wanted us to modify our extension blocks proposal after the fact, based on what he wanted.
16:44 < betawaffle> oh
16:44 < betawaffle> chjj: sounds a bit sketchy
16:44 < betawaffle> what modification?
16:44 < petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, I don't recall there being much of a gap between those
16:44 < chjj> betawaffle: mentioned above
16:45 < betawaffle> chjjL so how does that involve gmaxwell then?
16:45 < chjj> gmaxwell: the amount of lies and dishonesty coming from your corner needs to stop. leave me alone from now on. i just want to work on bitcoin.
16:45 < betawaffle> s/L/:/
16:46 < chainhead> So far the only provable lie I've seen is that bcoin is consensus compatible with bitcoin core
16:46 < gmaxwell> chjj: you've made a lot of over the top allegations here that you haven't backed up.
16:46 < chjj> chainhead: is it not?
16:46 < notmike> If you don't control your own edge routers, you're just somebody's little girlfriend
16:46 < chjj> gmaxwell: yeah, well your CSO seems to do that a lot.
16:46 < chainhead> The fact that you suggest that it is consensus compatible implies you are lying or just totally unqualified
16:46 < gmaxwell> chjj: what?
16:47 < TD-Linux> on a semi related note, I still have the asicboost antminer r4 traces if anyone wants to reverse engineer them further
16:47 < chjj> gmaxwell: making over the top allegations and not backing them up.
16:48 < chainhead> The over the top allegation is that gmaxwell somehow saved a secret just because you proposed some piece of javascript that everyone was going to switch to instead of their bitcoin core nodes within a few months
16:48 < gmaxwell> --- Log opened Fri Feb 24 14:42:26 2017
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:42 <gmaxwell> dude.
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:42 <gmaxwell> dude
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:42 <gmaxwell> dude
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:42 <gmaxwell> dude
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:42 <BlueMatt> ?
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:43 <gmaxwell> I have decoded jihan.
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:43 <gmaxwell> it's ... fucked.
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:43 <gmaxwell> soooo fucked.
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:43 <gmaxwell> fucked fucked fucked
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:43 <BlueMatt> ok, now you're sounding all conspiracy.....
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:43 <BlueMatt> care to share?  
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:43 <gmaxwell> You know there are two ways to implement asicboost right?  Version grinding and merkle root grinding, right?
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:44 <BlueMatt> sure  
16:48 < gmaxwell> 14:45 <gmaxwell> How would you make the latter vastly more computationally expensive?  You'd inc
16:49 < gmaxwell> (and I posted about it on april 5.)
16:50 < chjj> ??
16:50 < adam3us> chjj "no, for a number of reasons. primarily because you held onto a political move for a year, waiting to play it on someone. [...] you realize adam basically told me and joseph that was the case, right?" i think you are misremembering something because that is not the case, and i didnt say that.
16:50 < petertodd> yup, just checked, and gmaxwell told me feb 25th
16:50 < gmaxwell> That is when I had the idea-- maybe an hour after, telling bluematt about it--, I confirmed the device support in the weeks after that.
16:51 < adam3us> chjj i distinctly remember greg recounting his conversation with someone where he had suddenly hit on the realisation that segwit might conflict with AB, and it was really not a long time between that and him trying to verify it and talking about that publicly, like a couple of weeksish
16:52 < gmaxwell> I emailed Jihan about it on March 24th, though he didn't respond.
16:52 < adam3us> also the idea sketch we chatted about was more a sidechain / dynamic miner chosen federation and not an extension block.
16:53 < chjj> adam3us: that's what i thought too. i'm not sure exactly what you were trying to pitch us.
16:53 < adam3us> chjj recall i had concerns about ext-blocks being basically equivalent to a large block, in terms of requiring miners to process them, and for fullnodes to receive in order to validate
16:54 < chjj> adam3us: that whole thing was sketchy. i'm sorry i ever got involved in the scaling debate. there's too much shadowy bullshit going on.
16:54 < adam3us> chjj just to say that ext-blocks have that kind of limitation, and secondly there could be other design variants that wouldnt have that problem, if one was ok with varying levels of miner trust.  some with more like that dynamic federation, some with less like the slow return drivechain that sztorc has been proposing.
16:54 < adam3us> chjj what was sketchy? it's surely the case that anyone who got much involved in it got attacked for their efforts in various places, including most people in this scrollback.
16:55 < kanzure> some links and logs about about extension blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63b8lb/purse_extension_blocks_ready_for_liftoff/dft4nj1/?context=1
16:55 < adam3us> chjj i think so long as people try to work openly and by consensus, it's all in good fun and constructive because proposals have to start somewhere.
16:56 < chainhead> kanzure can provide pretty proof of timelines since he has a complete log of everything everyone has ever said to him, all timestamped in the blockchain
16:56 < betawaffle> kanzure: you're a treasure
16:56 < kanzure> i haven't read the backlog, what would you like?
16:56 < berken> @luke-jr, your tweets are bugging. One just disappeared
16:57 < betawaffle> kanzure: when did you first have evidence gmaxwell knew about asicboost segwit incompatibility
16:57 < kanzure> 2015
16:57 < chjj> gmaxwell & adam3us: doesn't matter. you guys succeeded. joseph is out of bitcoin now (after only trying to help the situation move forward), and i'm not going to stick my hand in any other consensus changes for now. i'll stick to improving the p2p layer or something. it's all good.
16:58 < chainhead> You literally just signed up for the NYA
16:58 < chainhead> And have been making commits
16:58 < betawaffle> hmm, maybe i still don't understand then
16:58 < kanzure> anti-asicboost was known as early as 2015
16:58 < chainhead> covert ASICBOOST
16:59 < gmaxwell> chjj: FWIW, long before the purse thing, I recieved docs that joseph had left working on lightning and was working on an ethereum ICO, you can't pin that on me; doubly so since AFAIK lightning was the only way he was in to begin with; even though I tried really hard to get him more involved.
16:59 < petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, others working on lightning complained joseph had pretty much stopped all work - this is apparently all visible in github history
17:00 < chainhead> No no no, Greg was so dedicated to driving off Joseph for reasons so he hired a full time developer to bring Joseph's white paper to fruition, and then he added more dev resources to do the same thing
17:00 < petertodd> chainhead: that monster
17:01 < kanzure> sarcasm does not translate well over the internet.
17:01 < chainhead> * /s
17:01 < gmaxwell> kanzure: huh? what are you talking about? segwit wasn't even proposed in 2015, did you misunderstand the question?
17:01 < betawaffle> kanzure: and yet you detected it
17:01 < kanzure> betawaffle: not for my sake.
17:02 < kanzure> oh geeze i mean 2016. hmm.
17:02 < gmaxwell> kanzure: do you mean covert asicboost?
17:02 < chjj> chainhead: i'm not convinced greg even wants lightning to succeed on bitcoin. why hasn't he expended any energy trying to prevent the lightning flood attack?
17:02 < kanzure> we were talking about anti-asicboost here https://bitcoincore.org/logs/2016-05-zurich-meeting-notes.html
17:02 < gmaxwell> kanzure: yea, no thats not the question you were being asked.
17:02 < kanzure> hmm.
17:02 < gmaxwell> kanzure: you were being asked about knowing about negative interactions between segwit specifically and asicboost.
17:03 < chjj> chainhead: that's part of the reason i started contributing to btc1, because i actually want lightning to succeed. i wanted to get those extra rules in, and it seemed easier to do there than to try to get it past greg.
17:03 < kanzure> i don't have a good answer for when i learned about that. maybe at the same time as everyone else.
17:03 < gmaxwell> betawaffle: (my logs don't suggest I told kanzure about it before it was public)
17:03 < kanzure> yea, i don't remember you doing that.
17:03 < chainhead> chjj Chaincode labs must be in on this conspiracy too since jnewbury was against it too
17:04 < kanzure> betawaffle: chainhead: let's stop encouraging conspiracy theorists.
17:04 < betawaffle> haha
17:04 < chainhead> I forgot /s again sorry kanzure
17:04 < betawaffle> kanzure: trying to disprove them
17:04 < adam3us> chjj i chat with joseph, and respect his insights, he's a smart guy. i know he wasn't having a fun time dealing with politics and go-between with miners. politics is not fun for anyone, best thing is to stick to tech IMO.
17:04 < gmaxwell> chjj: you realize that the main idea family for those was my proposal (timestop), no?   But with CSV I don't think the flood attacks are that exciting.
17:05 < adam3us> chjj i dont think flooding is that high priority. lightning works fine with segwit for a first pass IMO. we should be looking to work via consensus because it's a good idea.
17:05 < gmaxwell> chjj: (because you set the CSV timeouts long and replace your way up to outpace fees, someone trying to block a transaction for a block has to pay greater than the fee of that transaction for every single block they block it from....  so if your delay is 1000 blocks, you cause the attacker 1000 fold cost vs you)
17:06 < betawaffle> where can i read about how they grid the merkle root?
17:06 < betawaffle> grind*
17:06 < gmaxwell> chjj: and I think we don't know enough yet to construct any stronger tools-- the thing your proposal had I'd never even seen before. ... so it's not like there was some plethora of proposals out there ready to go and well analyized.
17:06 < kanzure> betawaffle: http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
17:07 < betawaffle> thanks
17:07 < gmaxwell> betawaffle: the specific optimization that is interesting is subtle. You need to make 2^16 block tries to find a collision, you can do this faster by doing 2^8 left sides and 2^8 right sides, then do 2^16 single hashes to combine them... many fold reduction in the amount of hashing you must do.
17:08 < gmaxwell> (esp with bigger blocks)
17:08 < gmaxwell> of course, if your block is empty you don't need to do this and can precompute the collision, long in advance.
17:08 < Emcy_> was it shown after that bitmains hardsware is capable of [covert?] asicboost
17:08 < Emcy_> i remember the claim
17:08 < betawaffle> what are you colliding with?
17:09 < TD-Linux> Emcy_, I've personally run it in asicboost mode
17:10 < Emcy_> the covert variant? ie the problematic one
17:10 < TD-Linux> the hardware is clearly capable of covert asicboost, but to do so requires software that isn't public and I haven't written. it does run in overt asicboost.
17:10 < Emcy_> ok. capability is enough.
17:10 < gmaxwell> betawaffle: you try to construct two hash roots with the same trailing 32 bits.  This lets do 2x hashes while reusing part of the sha2 algorithims work.
17:11 < TD-Linux> to be specific - you need to generate the collisions pretty fast because the chips eat through the nonce space fasat
17:11 < grubles> Emcy_, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C800tcxXkAAMfKu.jpg
17:11 < chjj> gmaxwell: just know, that the first time joseph and i went to china was to try to convince people to activate segwit. obviously, that didn't work, so we decided another strategy to get bitcoin the improvements it needed. it wasn't part of some asicboost conspiracy like you were suggesting. i've wanted to set the record straight on this 1000 times, but it's hard to convince the people who actually believed
17:12 < chjj> your nonsense.
17:12 < chjj> anyway, i didn't want to argue. sorry for making a big scene here. i just sort of hit my breaking point due to the endless trolling.
17:13 < gmaxwell> chjj: I am baffled by comments like "actually want lightning to succeed. i wanted to get those extra rules in,"  when you're talking about things which had litterally never had a public proposal!
17:13 < kanzure> chjj: i don't think he ever insinuated you/poon were on the conspiracy--- wasn't the claim rather that jihan was using you?
17:13 < chjj> gmaxwell: yeah, well there's a lot that goes unseen in bitcoin isn't there?
17:14 < pigeons> well the extension block proposal allowing covert asicboost made some people wonder
17:14 < kanzure> chjj: new rule upgrades shouldn't be unseen.
17:14 < gmaxwell> so why would you have possibily believed that there was some challenge in getting consensus rules to improve lightning; when they hadn't been proposed and no one even knew about them.
17:14 < chjj> kanzure: greg was laughing at joseph in this very channel for being "complicit" in this conspiracy
17:14 < chainhead> He's upset about the comment "lol poon is acting like he's not complicit in this"
17:14 < adam3us> well there's a multi-collision difficulty formula 2^(n*(k-1)/k) where n=32 collision, k is how many way collision. 2-way is quite cheap. 4-way is 2^24. this is assuming the most efficient approach, like meet in the middle attack like gmaxwell
17:14 < chjj> kanzure: agreed
17:14 < kanzure> chjj: perhaps complicit by virtue of ignorance...
17:14 < kanzure> dunno.
17:14 < gmaxwell> chjj: yes, after he sent a vigorously insulting attack to my post about the covert asicboost / segwit interactions!
17:14 < kanzure> hm.
17:15 < chjj> gmaxwell: he actually sent you a very polite email first, which you refused to answer without sarcasm.
17:15 < chainhead> How dare he use sarcasm
17:15 < chjj> chainhead: or, rather, he refused to answer it, and responded only with sarcasm
17:15 < chainhead> Sorry kanzure
17:16 < gmaxwell> And yes, at the time -- after finding out that you'd been meeting with jihan, that he was funding you, that you made some proposal that was completely secret at the time you got miners to agree to run it, which you were annoucing by running to the media rather than making a tech proposal... which seemed to carefully protect asicboost; even though just about every other advanced scheme we've had runs into
17:16 < gmaxwell>  the same problem segwit does..
17:16 < adam3us> chjj as i recall people were quite supportive of trying to get consensus on CSV design & implementation to improve lightning.
17:16 < gmaxwell> I did think you all knew about it.  Now I just think you got played.
17:18 < gmaxwell> And you were especially handcapped because your hand was in the cookie jar, taking bitmain money; trying to cram protocol changes through backroom deals (perhaps out of earnest desperation, I dunno), cutting off public discussion... 
17:18 < adam3us> anyway people can be a bit nicer to each other maybe. we're all trying to improve bitcoin. a bit more openness and collaboration would help.
17:18 < gmaxwell> Indeed, we implemented CSV for lightning; no big deal-- though it took at _year_ to work out the details!
17:19 < gmaxwell> and it was a much better proposal for it.
17:19 < kanzure> i don't sense any hostiliy here, adam3us.
17:20 < gmaxwell> kanzure: then you weren't reading the backscroll
17:20 < kanzure> adam3us: i think if you ask for friendliness you're going to compromise the ability to make public comments about insecure designs.
17:20 < kanzure> i already admitted to not reading the scrollback :)
17:20 < chjj> gmaxwell: yeah, think what you want. my conscience is clear.
17:20 < kanzure> so that's entirely consistent with my statements
17:20 < chainhead> You'll never convince the Roger Ver fan club that you aren't lizard people so I would not even try
17:21 < chjj> adam3us: i'm pretty hopeful for this month. it looks like we'll get segwit one way or another.
17:21 < adam3us> kanzure i think you could in a friendly way say "your design is full of shit" and likewise i could say "fuck you too" and both be fine with that.
17:22 < kanzure> yeah i don't mind f bombs. whatever.
17:23 < adam3us> chjj i think my understanding of the efforts you made to start with miner support for ext-blocks were in the hopes of breaking an impasse.  i think having been through the HK agreement or other things that a number of people, myself included, saw what it was like to try to help with problems, and see that not work out as anticipated.
17:24 < adam3us> chjj it's not gmaxwell's fault though.
17:25 < chjj> adam3us: i don't blame greg for it not working out. i blame greg for spreading endless conspiracy theories about me and joseph.
17:26 < adam3us> chjj hopefully segwit yes.
17:26 < chjj> adam3us: if it didn't work, it didn't work, and that's fine. it was a last ditch effort to try to get things moving again. that's fine.
17:26 < phantomcircuit> chjj, dont work with crazy people if you dont want people to think you're crazy
17:27 < adam3us> chjj well I did kind of argue with you too that it's not fun to hear about a proposal via media.  but i understand people often test out what others think about proposals before publishing.
17:28 < adam3us> chjj so no sour grapes etc. like i was saying, everyone who tried to help on scaling got mud thrown at them from somewhere.
17:28 < gmaxwell> It's not just that it's "not fun" -- it's actively toxic to users personal rights and a sound scientific process to work in secret then try to foist changes onto bitcoin (even compatible ones like softforks) via PR blitz.
17:29 < gmaxwell> Next time it'll be BLOQ/Vulcan govcoin KYC softfork or whatnot.
17:29 < chjj> gmaxwell: yeah, i agree. that was the wrong way to do it.
17:29 < chjj> gmaxwell: i'm not sure how that justifies saying we're a part of an asicboost conspiracy though.
17:29 < gmaxwell> Great. live and learn.
17:29 < adam3us> that might have been andrew
17:30 < adam3us> chjj it maybe was coincidence but it looked suspicious with the inputs.
17:30 < adam3us> bitmain funding, no segwit in base block, discussed at private meeting in china (or something like that)
17:30 < kanzure> wouldn't covert asicboost by definition be conspiracy
17:31 < gmaxwell> chjj: As I said before-- I thought that previously based on the confluence of events.  Almost all proposals break that optimization; commited bloom filters, commited utxo set, segwit..  so you go meet with jihan, public funding is announce of undisclosed parties around the same time,  you have this proposal that happens to dodge asicboost, miners agreed to run it, and announce via the press...  I think t
17:31 < gmaxwell> hat is a lot more coincidence than me picking the same successor value for an ID that you were happy to call me the most dishonest person you ever met over.
17:31 < adam3us> and this is all assuming S7-S9 are using covert AB, or using it in a non-SW compatible way.
17:31 < phantomcircuit> kanzure, no you can have a secret that involves noone else
17:31 < kanzure> phantomcircuit: oh look at you with the dictionary. hm.
17:31 < gmaxwell> I'm perfectly willing to believe that you and joseph were totally unaware of those concerns, that although you were talking to (and getting funding from jihan) he wasn't exactly telling you about the email I sent him and whatnot.
17:33 < chjj> gmaxwell: we weren't funded by jihan, or anyone for that matter, to do this. i don't know why you keep repeating that.
17:33 < chainhead> It was a donation
17:34 < gmaxwell> chjj: okay so this is another reason I keep thinking you're not being truthful, at the top of the discussion you said you recieved "donations" and that it was all public and above board.
17:34 < chjj> chainhead: there were no donations at this point either.
17:34 < neonlaser> in the words of the great satoshi nakamoto: “smack ma bitch up”.
17:34 < chainhead> Oh I forgot, the idea for the donation came from the accusation of a donation
17:35 < gmaxwell> chjj: https://coinjournal.net/3-teams-receive-funding-1-2-million-bitcoin-development-grant-funds-incoming/  so you're saying this wasn't purse?
17:35 < mt1337> chjj, sorry to jump in, but if you were pessimistic, and SigWit is a no, what are the chance we get bip?
17:35 < Char0n> best daily soap ever
17:35 < gmaxwell> purse/bcoin
17:36 < chainhead> They took money as a donation so it doesn't count
17:36 < BlueMatt> hey, wow, chjj *finally* admitted bitmain paid them to build extension blocks...wow that took way too long
17:36 < chjj> gmaxwell: yes, that was much later. we weren't "hired" to do this.
17:36 < gmaxwell> chjj: That was published January 9th 2017.
17:36 < chainhead> Much much a week or two later
17:37 < gmaxwell> (I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to understand)
17:37 < chjj> gmaxwell: that's the wrong article.
17:37 < chainhead> kanzure just put me down as /s unless I put /ns
17:37 < chjj> gmaxwell: i can find you the article. hold on.
17:37 < kanzure> chainhead: roger.
17:37 < chjj> gmaxwell: you can also look at the tx timestamps in the bcoin donation address if you care to.
17:37 < gmaxwell> chjj: I'm asking about that article, because that is what I was told at the time was purse/bcoin getting funding from bitmain from people who I would have expected to actually know.
17:38 < chjj> gmaxwell: https://medium.com/purse-essays/purse-enters-agreement-for-protocol-development-8ab1bffab371
17:38 < gmaxwell> chjj: if they were mistaken or confused okay; but I'm looking for confirmation from you.  
17:38 < chjj> gmaxwell: the article you posted looks like it's for BU
17:38 < BlueMatt> chjj: LOL, oh man, this is getting good...just reading scrollback you do know joseph is like seriously mentally unhealthy? Please dont feed his delusions, those of us who still care about him should be trying to get him help, not talking about how "greg hated him" or "core wanted him out of bitcoin", ffs, we rejected his scaling milan proposal BECAUSE IT WAS DUMB, not because of who's name was on it
17:39 < BlueMatt> (and greg wasnt even aware of that, afaik, fwiw)
17:39 < gmaxwell> chjj: it was for three teams.
17:39 < chjj> BlueMatt: got it. thanks for the explanation.
17:40 < gmaxwell> chjj: so you're saying purse/bcoin did not recieve funding as part of that?  But /only/ later, in the link you just provided?
17:40 < gmaxwell> (I'll accept it if you say so, just trying to be clear)
17:40 < BlueMatt> chjj: I'm seriously not joking, yo, bunch of us have a lot of respect for many of the ideas joseph came up with, but I (and a number of folks who are/were much closer to joseph than I) have been increasingly concerned over his delusions over the past 6+ mo...
17:41 < chainhead> Jihan denied this already https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/850642241559248896 but purse later entered an agreement that was not an agreement and just a donation a few weeks later https://medium.com/purse-essays/purse-enters-agreement-for-protocol-development-8ab1bffab371 that was just an idea that they got from Samson Mow and it is just a coincidence
17:41 < BlueMatt> somehow "wanted him out of Bitcoin"....yea, no, no one wanted that
17:42 < chjj> BlueMatt: i never said anyone wanted him out of bitcoin except greg.
17:43 < BlueMatt> chjj: yea, I've seen the mails greg sent joseph...sorry, those dont anywhere near rise to the level of "wanting him out of bitcoin"
17:43 < BlueMatt> and, fwiw, joseph complained to multiple people about other folks as well
17:43 < gmaxwell> other than chumming a bit with him and trying to talk him into participating more, I've almost never interacted with joseph. 
17:43 < BlueMatt> seriously, chjj, help us get him help...
17:44 < gmaxwell> I can't fathom why I'd want him out either; until this recent thing I don't think he's done anything but support things I support.
17:44 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: cause delusional, sadly :(
17:45 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: sounds kinda tmi... :( sort of wish you'd taken this conversation private.
17:45 < chjj> =/
17:46 < chjj> whatever. joseph is such a good dude. he really cares about bitcoin, and did everything he could to try to help it. i'm sorry you guys don't see that.
17:47 < BeautyBubble> Thank you for the invitation Mr. HODL.
17:47 < gmaxwell> chjj: he's a sweet guy, but as far as bitcoin goes, he's always been a ghost... never been able to get him involved in almost anything.
17:48 < kanzure> who posted the recent lightning proposal to the bitcoin-dev mailing list
17:48 < mt1337> chjj: is bip getting any traction at all? I know you said earlier that you're optimistic about SigWit but what happens if it doesn't pass?
17:50 < chjj> mt1337: hmm? qhich bip?
17:50 < chjj> which*
17:51 < mt1337> chjj: 148 (soft fork)
17:51 < kanzure> lightning has its own system, called Rustbolts
17:51 < chjj> mt1337: well, the NYA, if it happens, should activate segwit on both the 1mb and 2mb chain.
17:52 < chjj> mt1337: bip148, if the game theory works, can also activate segwit... all paths seem to lead to segwit. just a question of how.
17:52 < chjj> i'm along for the ride at this point.
17:53 < chjj> should be interesting.
17:54 < mt1337> chjj: right, but the network might split and who knows how long or if it would come back to consensus. Is that a valid concern?
17:56 < chjj> mt1337: we'll just have to wait and see. don't move your coins in the mean time. ;)