Cryto! 6 November 2013

00:03:59 iceTwy has quit (User quit:  Disconnecting from server)
00:06:35 apollo has quit (User quit:  )
00:21:55 pzuraq has quit (Connection reset by peer)
00:22:17 pzuraq ( has joined #crytocc
00:25:38 DrWhat has quit (Connection reset by peer)
00:26:19 DrWhat (Snake@DrWhat.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc
01:20:04 Thor (numz@676770E8.7FABF9B8.573B367D.IP) has joined #crytocc
01:46:13 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@26C92676.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
01:48:21 x (foobar@C35CA8A8.589C91BA.8F6A2B14.IP) has joined #crytocc
01:55:44 Sprinbit has quit (Ping timeout)
02:06:46 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@A1033E44.63DE6E0A.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
02:10:34 Thor26 (numz@2E8DE3F1.9F071888.42C12FD2.IP) has joined #crytocc
02:12:29 Thor26 has quit (Input/output error)
02:12:47 Thor has quit (Ping timeout)
02:19:21 Sprinbit has quit (Ping timeout)
02:39:28 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@2D9CAB68.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
02:51:00 Sprinbit has quit (Client exited)
02:54:28 Thor (numz@2E8DE3F1.9F071888.42C12FD2.IP) has joined #crytocc
03:00:17 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@2D9CAB68.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
03:04:58 Sprinbit has quit (Ping timeout)
03:44:13 Thor has quit (Input/output error)
04:03:30 GHOSTnew has quit (Ping timeout)
04:09:10 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@E823AB72.63DE6E0A.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
04:12:44 Zekka has quit (Connection reset by peer)
04:12:46 Zekka ( has joined #crytocc
04:16:52 pzuraq_ ( has joined #crytocc
04:16:53 pzuraq has quit (Connection reset by peer)
04:21:40 pzuraq_ has quit (Connection reset by peer)
04:22:01 pzuraq ( has joined #crytocc
04:23:14 Sprinbit has quit (Ping timeout)
05:01:51 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@B6A8303C.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
05:03:21 Sprinbit has quit (Client exited)
05:05:05 THX1337b ( has joined #crytocc
05:05:19 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@B6A8303C.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
05:06:27 THX1337b has quit (User quit:  Connection closed)
05:20:17 Sprinbit has quit (Client exited)
05:45:53 <cayce> lol MK_FG, "simple" is not what I'd call tax systems. Maybe yours is, but ours is NOT.
05:49:14 <cayce> what the fuck guys
05:49:25 <cayce> a paper comes out destroying the fundamentals of bitcoin and it rallies
05:49:31 <cayce> what is this witchcraft
05:49:49 <cayce> "We will defeat you with optimism!"
05:52:25 Anonymous922 ( has joined #crytocc
05:54:28 <MK_FG> cayce, I never really had to deal with it at more than personal level, so can be (and probably is) also damn complex here
05:54:50 <cayce> it's not simple on a personal level here
05:55:06 <cayce> unless you're middle class and do nothing but pay taxes on earned income
05:55:13 <cayce> that's the only case where it's simple here
05:55:30 <MK_FG> Yep, that's me ;)
05:55:40 <cayce> it's like, it's even called the 1040EZ
05:55:45 <MK_FG> Only I generally avoid paying tem, too
05:55:46 <cayce> cause it's easy
05:55:53 <cayce> you fill in a few numbers, name and social and you're done
05:56:14 <cayce> everybody else gets the 1040 if they're lucky, and more esoteric ones if they aren't
05:56:26 <MK_FG> "destroying the fundamentals of bitcoin" - talking about mutual trust and such?
05:56:55 <cayce> no, an attack we can't defend against that cheats to gain extra profit for miners
05:57:30 <cayce> idiot version: :: academic paper they wrote
05:57:58 <cayce> I haven't read em yet though, so don't try to debate me on the details yet
05:58:14 <cayce> I'll probably read the paper tomorrow afternoon I think
05:59:27 <MK_FG> Kinda sad, all things btc sounded nice
06:00:10 <MK_FG> Also wow, that blog has best header I've seen
06:00:37 <MK_FG> (and not some bloated 1000px stock image on top)
06:22:58 <cayce> lol
06:23:18 <cayce> but btc is also known for emergency deploying fixes
06:23:53 <cayce> careful stewardship of the software ecosystem is a positive thing, even if it bothers people who'd rather not trust the devs
06:25:12 Anonymous922 has quit (User quit:  Leaving)
06:26:14 <ElectRo`> .bitcoin
06:26:15 <botpie91> 1 BTC = $251.84, 1 BTC = €187.94
06:26:43 <ElectRo`> if only mtgox wasnt a bitch to withdrawal
06:31:47 <cayce> yeup
06:32:53 <MK_FG> Heheh, follow-up on that btc post is funny - :P
06:33:08 <MK_FG> "And there were some other interesting comments from the Bitcoin fringe. One commenter on Twitter asked us how much money we received from the NSA. Another accused us of being a member of an academic conspiracy to bring down Bitcoin and prop up fiat currency..."
06:33:59 joepie91 ( has joined #crytocc
06:39:50 <cayce> haha yeah bitcoin does seemingly have either a higher incidence rate of conspiracy people or perhaps they're just more visible
06:41:19 <joepie91> loggy, pointer?
06:41:19 <loggy>
06:42:00 <cayce> n.n
06:42:09 <joepie91> cayce: already addressed that paper elsewhere
06:42:19 <joepie91> and I wonder if the PDF finally works now
06:42:20 <joepie91> ah, it does
06:42:24 <cayce> locate: elsewhere
06:42:47 <MK_FG> It's there ----->
06:43:31 <joepie91> cayce:
06:43:32 <joepie91> "They keep their new discovery secret as well, and work on extending their lead. Eventually, the honest miners close the gap. Just before the gap is closed, the selfish pool publishes its longer chain. "
06:43:36 <joepie91> two things
06:43:53 <cayce> relies on timing
06:44:07 <joepie91> 1. "just before the gap is closed [...]" isn't the whole point that you can't actually TELL when a block is about to be found?
06:44:13 <joepie91> thus making that impossible
06:44:34 <cayce> but if they know they've got 5 minutes
06:44:39 <cayce> (ish)
06:44:40 <joepie91> they don't
06:44:50 <joepie91> block discovery is highly unpredictabl
06:44:53 <joepie91> unpredictable *
06:44:59 <cayce> I've noticed
06:45:00 <joepie91> you can find 3 blocks in a minute
06:45:03 <joepie91> and then none for an hour
06:45:05 <cayce> 35s apart, 22minutes apart
06:45:18 <joepie91> hence making discovery guesses infeasible
06:45:21 <joepie91> so that breaks that part of the attack
06:45:40 <cayce> why don't you write a takedown of the report
06:45:50 <cayce> not as if you have time for it, I know
06:45:51 <MK_FG> Post says that it has specifics of state machine that btc forms that proves it, have you read it?
06:45:55 <joepie91> 2. re: all of it; this seems to assume that selfish miners can somehow reliably maintain a longer private chain than the current public chain - isn't this EXACTLY what the mining majority system is supposed to prevent?
06:45:58 <MK_FG> *it = paper
06:46:01 <cayce> but again, you probably didn't read what I said to mk either
06:46:07 <joepie91> MK_FG; I couldn't yet because the generated PDF was broken yesterday
06:46:11 <joepie91> because arxiv sucks balls
06:46:17 <DrWhat> .btc
06:46:27 <joepie91> so so far I've only had this article to go off
06:46:30 <DrWhat> .bitcoin
06:46:30 <botpie91> 1 BTC = $247.99, 1 BTC = €188.00
06:46:33 <MK_FG> joepie91, "maintain a longer private chain" - for few seconds, it should be possible
06:46:34 <DrWhat> :)
06:46:35 <joepie91> same reason I haven't written a response to it yet
06:46:41 <joepie91> because missing info
06:46:46 <joepie91> cc cayce
06:46:56 <cayce> hollar when you post it (if you do)
06:46:57 <MK_FG> You just do head-start mining and publish your block e.g. a few secs later
06:47:04 <cayce> I'm going to read the paper tomorrow
06:47:22 <cayce> must sleep now, is 47m past bedtime
06:47:23 <joepie91> MK_FG: except that only works for as long as you can maintain the longer chain
06:47:37 <joepie91> and you -don't- publish it a few secs later
06:47:43 <MK_FG> Yeah, you risk loosing that head-start there
06:47:44 <joepie91> because that would make the rest of the miners switch to the new block
06:47:50 <joepie91> thus making a continued headstart impossible
06:47:56 <MK_FG> Umm
06:47:59 <joepie91> as you cannot ever be more than 1 block ahead
06:48:08 <MK_FG> Yes, and that's fine
06:48:17 <joepie91> it makes the attack described in the article impossible
06:48:21 <MK_FG> You don't loose head-start by publishing block though
06:48:27 <joepie91> you do
06:48:46 <MK_FG> You already know N nonces that don't yield valid block
06:48:48 <joepie91> your headstart is counted in blocks, not in computing time spent
06:48:51 <MK_FG> Others don't
06:48:55 <MK_FG> That's head-start
06:49:08 <MK_FG> *that's head-start I mean
06:49:13 <joepie91> MK_FG: aside from that not mattering much in the "grander scheme of mining", the target value changes each block
06:49:19 <joepie91> if I am not mistaken
06:49:35 <joepie91> which means that information becomes useless the moment your block is mined/published
06:50:03 <MK_FG> Each next block needs accepted hash of the last, yeah
06:50:11 <joepie91> yes
06:50:15 <MK_FG> But as a person who has that "last" block, you have it
06:50:24 <MK_FG> So you can immediately start mining next one
06:50:28 <cayce> so does everyone else
06:50:38 <MK_FG> Not if you don't publish it!
06:50:42 <joepie91> MK_FG: right, I see what you mean now, but that doesn't seem to me like it matters muc
06:50:45 <joepie91> much *
06:50:59 <cayce> and 12 seconds into your lead somebody else finds a block and pubs
06:50:59 <MK_FG> Hence he says that paper has maths to prove that it does
06:51:01 <cayce> lead lost
06:51:11 <MK_FG> ...which can't be summed in a few words, apparently
06:51:14 <joepie91> cayce: the idea being that you've already mined for the new block when the others don't have the hash to do so yet
06:51:23 <joepie91> even if you haven't found it yet
06:51:26 <joepie91> you have the 'base value'
06:51:29 <cayce> hmm
06:51:40 <joepie91> MK_FG: the thing is that the article speaks of "extending lead"
06:51:41 <cayce> seems like it'd only work inside of other blocks being found
06:51:48 <joepie91> and seems to imply being more than one block ahead
06:51:54 <joepie91> so are you sure you're talking about the same kind of attack?
06:52:06 * cayce shrugs + sleeps
06:52:54 <MK_FG> "They keep their new discovery secret as well, and work on extending their lead." - yeah, they do extend lead
06:53:14 <MK_FG> As when finding next block sooner than everyone else, they won't publish it either
06:53:31 <MK_FG> So they get more head-start on third one
06:53:36 <MK_FG> And even more on fourth one
06:53:41 <MK_FG> And so on
06:54:10 <MK_FG> Maybe spanning few blocks of such unpublished head-start eventually
06:54:40 <MK_FG> how I understand it, but didn't read the paper either, don't like math that much ;)
06:57:46 <joepie91> MK_FG: the problem is
06:57:48 <joepie91> how do they do that?
06:57:52 <joepie91> they have a minority of mining power
06:58:06 <joepie91> their chances of building a longer chain than the majority of miners are small
06:58:55 <MK_FG> True
06:59:19 <MK_FG> Indeed, it seems that to maintain it in exactly that way, you have to win every time
07:00:05 <MK_FG> So guess it's only viable when/if such selfish mining pools get enough of an edge over everyone else
07:00:28 <joepie91> MK_FG; which seems to defeat the point of "an attack that requires less than 50% of the network" :)
07:00:30 <MK_FG> Not necessarily the majority though, given that they have a bit of an advantage
07:00:40 <MK_FG> I think that
07:00:43 <joepie91> I doubt it's -this- much of an advantage
07:00:55 <MK_FG> that's the separate point.... about <50%
07:01:11 <joepie91> I mean, you're basically just describing a split chain attack at this point
07:01:54 iceTwy ( has joined #crytocc
07:03:33 <MK_FG> Paper seem to talk about several-blocks-sized adv though "When the public branch approaches the pool's private branch in length, the selsh miners reveal blocks from their private chain to the public."
07:04:40 <joepie91> still doesn't answer how the private branch is getting there in the first place :|
07:05:08 <ElectRo`> alice finds block, alice sees bob finds a block, alice pushes her block before bobs.
07:05:14 cayce has quit (Ping timeout)
07:06:17 <joepie91> ElectRo`: except you can't actually do that
07:06:35 <joepie91> because by the time alice sees that bob found a block, bobs block will have been published
07:06:38 <MK_FG> Hence the paper is longer than one sentence... :P
07:06:39 <joepie91> and yours will be rejected
07:08:03 <ElectRo`> he assumes alot of things
07:08:10 <ElectRo`> the requirements are too high
07:08:12 <MK_FG> Focus is apparently on analyzing the effort spent by slefish miners vs honest rest
07:08:54 <MK_FG> ...and making the latters' go to waste ;)
07:10:29 <joepie91> Because of the power differential between the selfsh miners and the others, the chances of the selfish miners mining on their own private branch and overtaking the main branch are small.
07:10:32 <joepie91> k..
07:11:58 iceTwy has quit (Ping timeout)
07:12:00 <MK_FG> Hmm
07:12:15 <MK_FG> Page 6 calc seem to solve that problem
07:12:31 <MK_FG> ...somewhat
07:13:13 <MK_FG> I.e. whenever you see public branch getting same length as private (i.e. have same 1-block advantage) - you publish as fast as you can and try your luck
07:14:43 <MK_FG> If your pool wins that often enough, seem to be an advantage already, but still need to push it further to lock that advantage
07:18:36 <MK_FG> Looks like even advantage of 2 blocks indeed gets nullified eventually, but still gives more rewards than honest mining
07:18:37 <joepie91> MK_FG, this doesn't seem right:
07:19:17 <joepie91> wouldn't it release its full branch when the public chain was 1 behind instead of 2?
07:19:41 <joepie91> so what's that doing there :|
07:20:35 <joepie91> oh
07:20:40 <joepie91> no, I see how it works
07:20:52 <joepie91> mental off-by-one error :)
07:23:05 <MK_FG> Ok, no way I'm reading past page 10 ;)
07:24:54 <joepie91> my mind tunes out of too many maths also
07:25:38 cayce (cayce@cayce.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc
07:26:55 <MK_FG> I still scrolled to section 5 and summaries after it and found them more appealing ;)
07:29:31 <MK_FG> "A possible line of defense against selsh mining pools is for counter-attackers to inltrate selsh pools and to expose their secret blocks for the honest miners..." <--- oh dear, it's like back to politics :P
07:31:06 <joepie91> MK_FG : two observations
07:31:25 <joepie91> 1. ASSUMING the maths are right, which really needs to be double-checked because it doesn't sound like it makes sense, it is a feasible attack
07:31:33 <joepie91> actually, 4 observations
07:31:40 <joepie91> 2. it's a social attack rather than a technical one
07:31:58 <joepie91> 3. the paper doesn't address what happens when there are multiple selfish mining pools
07:32:18 <joepie91> 4. this is exactly the cartel attack that was already explained before
07:32:19 <MK_FG> Indeed, I also wonder about 3
07:32:48 <MK_FG> And I'd argue that if it can be implemented in code, it's not that social ;)
07:33:01 <MK_FG> Just a different algo
07:33:35 <joepie91> MK_FG: it -is- a social attack
07:33:41 <joepie91> the actual attack isn't the increase in revenue
07:33:45 <joepie91> that's just an incentive
07:34:03 <MK_FG> Um, it is increase in revenue of selfish pool
07:34:23 <joepie91> the actual attack is using the increase in revenue for the pool miners as an incentive to attract new miners, thus building a majority of the mining network in one pool
07:34:28 <joepie91> and gaining control over the bitcoin network
07:34:40 <joepie91> which is a social attack
07:34:52 <joepie91> it relies on "luring people in", basically
07:35:00 <MK_FG> Oh, I didn't realy read it like that, but yeah, guess that implication is a social one
07:35:20 <joepie91> I mean, the private chain in itself, while annoying, isn't really a protocol-breaking thing
07:35:21 <MK_FG> Otherwise, for pools above threshold with no interest in control it's just technical
07:35:46 <MK_FG> And yeah, guess not that much of an "attack", just cool feature
07:35:53 <joepie91> and that's where the multiple pool question comes in :)
07:37:55 <joepie91> observation 5: the paper does not mathematically address/prove the implications of their "fix" for the effectiveness of the attack
07:38:03 <joepie91> which is a little odd
07:39:30 <MK_FG> Cartel attack indeed looks similar
07:58:48 <joepie91> enough wackos in the comments section
07:59:00 <joepie91> but I can't say the author is responding very properly either
07:59:11 <joepie91> 'Your rebuttal has to contain math (e.g. "not that much" isn't numerate), or else it has no information content.'
07:59:14 <joepie91> I mean, really?
08:12:58 <MK_FG> He has few next blogposts as replies to these, too ;)
08:33:58 mama ( has joined #crytocc
09:25:22 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@B6A8303C.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
09:42:14 Sprinbit has quit (Client exited)
09:45:08 *** captaino1vious is now known as captainobvious
10:12:56 pzuraq has quit (Input/output error)
10:26:44 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@B6A8303C.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
10:38:16 Sprinbit has quit (Client exited)
10:54:06 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@D3E039A6.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
11:16:20 Sprinbit has quit (Client exited)
11:24:21 escape (tor@AA590F93.362B7402.283603DB.IP) has joined #crytocc
11:27:42 probably has quit (Ping timeout)
11:28:52 probably (asdf@5FB77DE4.EC4DE96E.6C0BEC1B.IP) has joined #crytocc
11:50:14 ElectRo` has quit (Client exited)
11:50:14 iceTwy ( has joined #crytocc
11:50:15 ElectRo` ( has joined #crytocc
11:54:26 x has quit (Input/output error)
12:25:17 iceTwy has quit (Ping timeout)
13:06:55 escape has quit (User quit:  leaving)
13:43:53 <joepie91> .tw
13:43:54 <botpie91> We have had a fire in a scanning center.  No one hurt.  Our data and main building are safe, and website back soon. (@internetarchive)
13:43:54 <joepie91> .tw
13:43:56 <botpie91> Fire in a side building-- library, data, people all safe.   Please donate to help us rebuild  Thank you. (@internetarchive)
13:50:04 crytoweb946 ( has joined #crytocc
13:50:31 crytoweb946 has quit (User quit:  Page closed)
14:05:03 ttmbRAT ( has joined #crytocc
14:06:25 ttmbRAT has quit (User quit:  Connection closed)
14:13:51 <cayce> :O
14:14:15 GHOSTnew (GHOSTnew@GHOSTnew.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc
14:16:59 <norbert79> fuck, what happened?
14:24:18 Sprinbit (Sprinbit@ED07FC1.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc
14:27:11 <joepie91> norbert79; fire in scanning center next door
14:32:39 <norbert79> joepie91: Just read... What was the cause? (not that it would be that important,,,)
14:33:16 <joepie91> no idea
14:36:47 <cayce> NP: [Rage Against The Machine - Maggie's Farm] [Renegades (Limited Edition)] [1012kbps] DeaDBeeF 0.5.6-3jane
14:38:26 Sprinbit has quit (Ping timeout)
14:48:07 <joepie91> wow...
14:48:10 <joepie91> norbert79, cayce,
14:48:14 <joepie91> this is what is left of the scanning facility
14:48:17 <joepie91> :/
14:48:58 <cayce> gutted
14:55:36 <norbert79> fuck
14:55:39 <norbert79> looks bad
15:02:00 <joepie91> yeas :(
15:02:04 <joepie91> yes *
15:04:37 x (foobar@C35CA8A8.589C91BA.8F6A2B14.IP) has joined #crytocc
15:08:53 <joepie91>
15:09:17 <x> what's that about?
15:09:30 <joepie91> <joepie91>.tw
15:09:31 <joepie91> <joepie91>.tw
15:09:31 <joepie91> <botpie91>We have had a fire in a scanning center.  No one hurt.  Our data and main building are safe, and website back soon. (@internetarchive)
15:09:31 <joepie91> <botpie91>Fire in a side building-- library, data, people all safe.   Please donate to help us rebuild  Thank you. (@internetarchive)
15:09:38 <joepie91> <joepie91>wow...
15:09:38 <joepie91> <joepie91>norbert79, cayce,
15:09:38 <joepie91> <joepie91>this is what is left of the scanning facility
15:10:10 <x> o.o
15:10:24 terminat0r (terminat0r@1B1EA017.632B5346.58115DA1.IP) has joined #crytocc
15:35:00 Pandora ( has joined #crytocc
15:35:33 <cayce> NP: [The Chemical Brothers - Do It Again (Edit)] [Do It Again] [812kbps] DeaDBeeF 0.5.6-3jane
15:37:01 <cayce> ooooh
15:37:02 <cayce> man
15:37:15 <cayce> fucking bullets flying on cryptography mailing list
15:37:17 <cayce> epic
15:37:30 <cayce> no punches being held
15:37:31 <cayce> heh
15:38:47 <cayce> hmm
15:38:57 <joepie91>
15:38:59 <cayce> there's something I wonder though, and have for a while
15:39:00 <joepie91> cayce: oh?
15:39:04 <joepie91> link?
15:39:18 <cayce> it's in my email, how do I link to it
15:39:31 <joepie91> web viewer, paste, idk
15:39:40 <cayce> hold on, trying to find online archives
15:40:17 <cayce>
15:40:20 <cayce> first mail
15:40:23 <cayce> anyway
15:40:54 <joepie91> tthanks
15:40:55 <cayce> we put steel girders around cryptography... because "only cryptographers can get it right (and even then, they fuck it up sometimes)" and I wonder how damaging this is
15:40:57 <joepie91> -t
15:41:27 <cayce> I wonder how many good cryptos are NOT made because the authors are scared to try and use it
15:41:59 <cayce> It's like rule #1 don't roll your own crypto, but it still makes me wonder
15:44:18 <cayce> wow, first time I've seen somebody other than gabriella coleman correctly categorize anonymous
15:44:31 <cayce> "the amorphous hacktivist group Anonymous."
15:44:42 <cayce> woot
15:44:45 <cayce> baby steps!
15:44:47 <cayce> :3
15:44:48 <joepie91> mm
15:44:49 <joepie91> close
15:44:56 <joepie91> not a hacktivist group
15:45:02 <joepie91> got amorphous right though
15:45:08 <cayce> No? I'd call it one
15:45:36 <joepie91> and you'd be wrong :)
15:45:45 <joepie91> sure, there's a hacktivist subsection
15:45:45 <cayce> I'm perhaps interested in what excludes that then :) (though I realize this is officially offtopic for this chan ;) )
15:45:48 <joepie91> doesn't make it a hacktivist group
15:45:53 <joepie91> see: /b/
15:46:16 <cayce> I don't characterize /b/ by hacking though
15:46:24 <joepie91> that's kinda the point
15:46:25 <cayce> (broadly defining hacking, here)
15:47:07 <cayce> well, I also don't equate /b/ and anon, so I'm unsure of comparability
15:47:13 <cayce> >_>
15:47:27 <joepie91> there are anons on /b/ that haev absolutely nothing to do with either hacking or activism
15:47:29 <joepie91> let alone both
15:47:45 <cayce> yep
15:47:54 <joepie91> hence not a hacktivist group
15:47:58 <joepie91> that's just the part that hit most headlines
15:47:59 * cayce remembers /i/nvasion, back in the day
15:51:23 <cayce> oh man
15:51:35 <cayce> crunchbase is suing people using their CC data
15:51:38 <joepie91> <sonicrose>Yesterday I changed my WiFi Name to "Hack If You Can".  When I checked it today was "Challenge Accepted"
15:51:45 <joepie91> cayce: huh?
15:51:51 <cayce> tech crunch?
15:51:57 <cayce> they have a db of company info "crunchbase"
15:52:05 <cayce> api to axx it all
15:52:07 <cayce> etc
15:52:15 <cayce> but the data itself is released CreativeCommons
15:52:31 <cayce> problem? AOL (crunchbase/tc's parent) are trying to sue some company for using the data
15:52:39 <cayce> eff peed on them in response
15:52:46 <joepie91> lol
15:52:46 <cayce> just a little tinkle
15:52:47 <cayce> lol
15:53:06 <cayce>
15:53:24 <cayce> or the one that broke the story
15:53:24 <cayce>
15:53:34 <cayce> "AOL Smacks Startup for Using CrunchBase Content It Gave Away"
15:53:58 <cayce> it's one of those situations where they labeled the data CC, but the API is controlled
15:54:23 <cayce> and they feel like after they terminated api usage (due to not liking how it was being use) they had the right to ask for the data to be deleted too
15:54:43 <cayce> even though (as the eff argues) there's no such right given (due to CC nature of data)
15:55:04 <cayce> etc
15:57:41 <cayce> hmm
15:57:53 <cayce> there are responses to that bitcoin paper too, on the blog I linked
15:57:57 <cayce> he's written some more articles
15:58:10 <cayce> if you want to deep dive, may be worth reading his further refutations
15:58:44 <cayce> I think I'm going to install debian this weekend
15:59:00 <cayce> since they switched to xfce by default, until august 2014
15:59:09 <cayce> (for jessie)
16:00:52 <cayce> and
16:00:56 <cayce> (@ bitcoin)
16:06:00 x has quit (Input/output error)
16:27:48 <joepie91> I feel like there should be a "cryptography school"
16:28:07 <joepie91> with freely accessible learning materials re: cryptography, and accessible peer review
16:29:56 <MK_FG> Wonder what you meant by "accessible peer review" there
16:30:14 <MK_FG> Doesn't seem to fit into "school" model in my head ;)
16:36:09 <joepie91> MK_FG; as in, an easy way to have your ideas vetted/criticized/analyzed by people who actually know wtf they're doing
16:36:27 <joepie91> without having to be part of some 'inner circle' and without feeling like you're not going to be welcomed
16:36:36 <joepie91> crypto has a bit of an 'elite' atmosphere hanging around it atm
16:36:40 <joepie91> crypto dev anyway
16:37:10 <zxcvbnm> joepie91: I think the only real challenge there would be instantiating the platform to host that on
16:37:22 <zxcvbnm> crypto-experts would likely be willing to offer their expertise
16:37:36 <joepie91> mmm...
16:37:44 <zxcvbnm> the bulk of it would just be gathering resources and material
16:37:50 <zxcvbnm> perhaps assembling a "course" or curriculum
16:37:51 * joepie91 wonders if he could tempt zxcvbnm to try and set up such a platform
16:37:54 <joepie91> or MK_FG for that matter
16:38:00 <zxcvbnm> sort of like
16:38:17 <joepie91> I would perceive both of you to be competent enough to handle at the very least the organizational part of something like that :P
16:38:54 <zxcvbnm> well now that i've tricked you into thinking i'm competent... bahahah
16:39:03 <zxcvbnm> next step: world domination
16:41:13 <MK_FG> I think that randombit ML can be considered such a platform, actually
16:41:42 <MK_FG> There are plenty of mails like "hey there, I'm a dev of app that does this ... like that .... comments?"
16:42:09 <MK_FG> And then someone like e.g. Marsh Ray goes and leaves like 100-page review of that in reply ;)
16:42:36 <joepie91> "mailing list" is already not accessible enough
16:42:50 terminat0r has quit (Ping timeout)
16:42:53 <MK_FG> You hipsters not liking MLs :P
16:43:02 <joepie91> right now developers are rolling their own crypto incorrectly
16:43:05 <joepie91> because not asking is easier
16:43:08 <joepie91> you need to make it easier to ask
16:43:11 <joepie91> basically
16:43:27 <joepie91> bonus points for having a point of entry into the crypto world without too much commitment
16:45:38 <MK_FG> Yeah, maybe some forum on par with stack overflow would be nice to have for such reviews and more generic questions
16:46:03 <MK_FG> Crypto part of stack exchange isn't that well suited for discussions like reviews on ML, alas
16:47:30 <joepie91> indeed
16:48:17 <MK_FG> Wonder if that discourse forum platform of theirs has same score-based moderation as SE
16:48:43 <MK_FG> Because manual moderation sounds like a full-time job for such accessible platform ;)
16:49:32 <zxcvbnm> have you guys seen that language learning web site where people review your work?
16:49:39 <zxcvbnm> it's like.. mocha or something
16:50:09 <zxcvbnm> live mocha
16:50:21 <zxcvbnm> so as part of the "trianing course" and program that they provide
16:50:37 <zxcvbnm> you can do a translation of something, then it gets sent to another user of that nativel anguage to review
16:50:42 <zxcvbnm> interesting concept
16:51:13 Zekka has quit (Ping timeout)
16:51:25 <MK_FG> Sounds nice
16:55:24 x (foobar@91513BE6.1FF3EB83.C789C8B2.IP) has joined #crytocc
17:00:45 x has quit (Input/output error)
17:05:41 Zekka ( has joined #crytocc
17:27:34 zest ( has joined #crytocc
17:28:38 <zest> THIS IS A PUBLICALLY LOG.... --- publicly
17:29:48 <cayce> discourse based sites are starting to pop up here and there, it's kinda nice
17:42:12 <joepie91> zest: speak to dpk about that
17:42:14 <joepie91> :)
17:42:17 <joepie91> oh
17:42:17 <joepie91> what
17:42:18 <joepie91> dpk gone
17:42:34 dpk ( has joined #crytocc
17:42:40 <dpk> what what what
17:42:57 <dpk> oh, hey zest
17:43:44 <dpk> joepie91 tells me you are having issues with the more rational spelling of "publicly", attested since 1797 in the OED
17:44:29 <dpk> i invite you to consider how any other adjective in '-ic' forms an adverbial
17:45:13 <joepie91> zest: there's dpk :)
17:47:54 <dpk> e.g. magic, basic, aphetic, etc.
17:51:42 Zekka has quit (Ping timeout)
18:00:37 <zest> dpk: "publically" is used more often in law because it is a bigger word and looks more impressive (I googled a bit)
18:00:53 <zest> dpk: whanna impress someone ?
18:01:47 Zekka (zekka@Zekka.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc
18:02:04 <dpk> who?
18:02:10 <zest> you
18:05:37 <zest> ok, doesn't matter actually, it is a nice channel anyway
18:06:16 <connor> hmm
18:08:20 Pandora has quit (User quit:  Leaving)
18:08:34 <zxcvbnm> To clear up any confusion, zest was suggesting that you are trying to impress people w/ your fancy spelling
18:08:46 * zxcvbnm miscommunicator communicator
18:08:57 <dpk> ah
18:09:17 <zxcvbnm> based on the defined reasons found on Google for spelling it publically vs publicly
18:10:00 <MK_FG> Fairly sure he rather meant that it's "publically" that looks more impressive, so dpk kinda failed at that with "publicly" ;)
18:10:53 <zxcvbnm> MK_FG: the topic in this channel is "THIS IS A PUBLICALLY...."
18:10:58 <MK_FG> joepie91, How about "log of the channel is available on the nets"? :P
18:11:11 <zxcvbnm> So, opposite of what you said
18:11:12 <zxcvbnm> :)
18:11:17 <MK_FG> Oh, right
18:11:33 <MK_FG> Jeez this is confusing
18:11:47 <MK_FG> I can't even tell these words apart
18:12:07 <joepie91> lol
18:12:08 <joepie91> also
18:12:13 <joepie91> I ran across this in a spec I was reading
18:12:14 <joepie91> Returns a new Record object representing a record from the appropriate result set; it may have been fetched from the server, or simply returned from a cache. Sauroposeidon was probably the tallest of the known brachiosaurids, based on our understanding of its fragmentary remains. If you've read this far, email me and let me know. Thanks.
18:12:33 <connor> joepie91, did you eventually get your hardware back after the raid?
18:13:07 <MK_FG> Heh, which spec is that?
18:13:50 <MK_FG> Also, Sauroposeidon? Didn't know they named these reptiles after greek gods
18:13:52 <joepie91> connor: not yet, I will make sure to make it known when I do
18:13:58 <joepie91> MK_FG:
18:14:52 <connor> right ok
18:15:40 <MK_FG> Wow, it's not even long spec ;)
18:19:24 <DrWhat> :(
18:19:24 <DrWhat>
18:19:29 <DrWhat> is broken
18:19:39 <DrWhat> can anyone else get it to work?
18:19:54 <DrWhat> joepie91 whats another BTC converter
18:20:15 <joepie91> how do you mean?
18:21:01 <DrWhat>
18:21:20 <DrWhat> Its not showing the USD value
18:21:40 <joepie91> ..
18:21:43 <joepie91> .bitcoin
18:21:43 <botpie91> 1 BTC = $258.23, 1 BTC = €194.00
18:21:45 <joepie91> .c 1 + 1
18:21:46 <botpie91> IndexError: list index out of range (file "/home/phenny/phenny/modules/", line 80, in c)
18:21:49 <joepie91> er
18:21:53 <joepie91> .gc 1 + 1
18:21:54 <botpie91> 1 + 1: 5,500,000,000 / ?
18:21:57 <joepie91> no?
18:21:59 <joepie91> .wa 1 + 1
18:22:05 <botpie91> 1+1;2;two;| +->-> = ->, 1->->1->->2;age 6:  3.2 seconds -> age 8:  1.8 seconds -> age 10:  1.2 seconds -> , age 18:  0.83 seconds, (ignoring concentration, repetition, variations in education, etc.)
18:22:06 <joepie91> done
18:22:16 <joepie91> .py 1 + 1
18:22:17 <botpie91> 2
18:23:12 <DrWhat> raw py input?
18:23:20 <DrWhat> so
18:23:29 <DrWhat> .py exec('ls')
18:23:30 <botpie91> NameError: name 'ls' is not defined
18:23:34 <DrWhat> :/
18:23:40 <joepie91> sigh
18:23:43 <joepie91> appengine
18:23:49 <joepie91> don't bother
18:23:49 <DrWhat> Ohhhh
18:23:51 <DrWhat> :P
18:23:55 <DrWhat> ukm
18:26:25 <joepie91> sleep tim
18:26:26 <joepie91> time *
18:26:27 <joepie91> night
18:29:13 <DrWhat> NOOOO
18:29:16 <DrWhat> Why now
18:29:19 <DrWhat> I only just got up
18:29:31 joepie91 has quit (Ping timeout)
18:30:24 Pandora ( has joined #crytocc
19:10:15 Zekka has quit (Ping timeout)
19:28:37 Zekka ( has joined #crytocc
19:51:12 Zekka has quit (Ping timeout)
19:59:56 pzuraq ( has joined #crytocc
20:01:17 <pzuraq> heyo
20:05:06 Zekka ( has joined #crytocc
20:11:46 zest has quit (Ping timeout)
20:26:18 zest (zest@F0845C18.5982FCB.42C12FD2.IP) has joined #crytocc
20:27:48 iceTwy ( has joined #crytocc
20:51:03 Zekka has quit (Ping timeout)
20:55:15 <probably> .bitcoin
20:55:17 <botpie91> 1 BTC = $261.75, 1 BTC = €194.98
20:55:43 <probably> gah, I need $0.05 to make 1 whole btc
21:05:23 Pandora has quit (User quit:  Leaving)
21:15:04 Zekka (zekka@Zekka.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc
21:29:21 <DrWhat> I have 1 whole bitcoin
21:44:08 achus has quit (User quit:  Leaving)
21:56:43 Cryto622 ( has joined #crytocc
21:56:51 Cryto622 has quit (User quit:  Cryto622)
21:57:07 Cryto865 ( has joined #crytocc
21:58:33 Cryto865 has quit (User quit:  Page closed)
22:04:29 botpie91 has quit (Ping timeout)
22:05:13 fanat1ck ( has joined #crytocc
22:06:36 fanat1ck has quit (User quit:  Connection closed)
22:07:48 d0wn|off has quit (Ping timeout)
22:08:50 cayce has quit (Ping timeout)
22:11:22 GHOSTnew has quit (Ping timeout)
22:14:57 cayce (cayce@cayce.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc
22:15:10 d0wn|off ( has joined #crytocc
22:15:28 *** d0wn|off is now known as d0wn
22:15:54 GHOSTnew (GHOSTnew@GHOSTnew.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc
22:19:37 rox ( has joined #crytocc
22:20:02 rox has parted #crytocc ()
22:59:17 zest has quit (User quit:  have fun :P)
23:03:00 complex (litehode@complex.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc
23:03:59 <complex> is it possible for a network to contain several computers where no computer has any identification?
23:04:21 <complex> where no computer hasnt any identification
23:04:28 <complex> like IP
23:19:08 iceTwy has quit (Ping timeout)
23:19:19 iceTwy ( has joined #crytocc
23:19:39 mama has quit (Ping timeout)
23:19:50 complex has parted #crytocc (None)
23:22:46 iceTwy has quit (User quit:  Disconnecting from server)
23:57:03 <IR601> .