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 (pzuraq@cryto-D2623541.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) 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 (zekka@cryto-3375819E.arizona.edu) has joined #crytocc 04:16:52 *** pzuraq_ (pzuraq@cryto-D2623541.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) 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 (pzuraq@cryto-D2623541.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) 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 (THX1337b@cryto-5068AA0A.us-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com) 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 lol MK_FG, "simple" is not what I'd call tax systems. Maybe yours is, but ours is NOT. 05:49:14 what the fuck guys 05:49:25 a paper comes out destroying the fundamentals of bitcoin and it rallies 05:49:31 what is this witchcraft 05:49:49 "We will defeat you with optimism!" 05:52:25 *** Anonymous922 (Anonymous9@cryto-7F36B92C.mullvad.net) has joined #crytocc 05:54:28 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 it's not simple on a personal level here 05:55:06 unless you're middle class and do nothing but pay taxes on earned income 05:55:13 that's the only case where it's simple here 05:55:30 Yep, that's me ;) 05:55:40 it's like, it's even called the 1040EZ 05:55:45 Only I generally avoid paying tem, too 05:55:46 cause it's easy 05:55:53 you fill in a few numbers, name and social and you're done 05:56:14 everybody else gets the 1040 if they're lucky, and more esoteric ones if they aren't 05:56:26 "destroying the fundamentals of bitcoin" - talking about mutual trust and such? 05:56:55 no, an attack we can't defend against that cheats to gain extra profit for miners 05:57:30 idiot version: http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/ :: academic paper they wrote http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0243v1 05:57:58 I haven't read em yet though, so don't try to debate me on the details yet 05:58:14 I'll probably read the paper tomorrow afternoon I think 05:59:27 Kinda sad, all things btc sounded nice 06:00:10 Also wow, that blog has best header I've seen 06:00:37 (and not some bloated 1000px stock image on top) 06:22:58 lol 06:23:18 but btc is also known for emergency deploying fixes 06:23:53 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 .bitcoin 06:26:15 1 BTC = $251.84, 1 BTC = €187.94 06:26:43 if only mtgox wasnt a bitch to withdrawal 06:31:47 yeup 06:32:53 Heheh, follow-up on that btc post is funny - http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/06/comment-policy/ :P 06:33:08 "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 (joepie91@cryto-3E6002EF.direct-adsl.nl) has joined #crytocc 06:39:50 haha yeah bitcoin does seemingly have either a higher incidence rate of conspiracy people or perhaps they're just more visible 06:41:19 loggy, pointer? 06:41:19 http://wire.cryto.net/logs/crytocc/2013-11-06#T06-41-19 06:42:00 n.n 06:42:09 cayce: already addressed that paper elsewhere 06:42:19 and I wonder if the PDF finally works now 06:42:20 ah, it does 06:42:24 locate: elsewhere 06:42:47 It's there -----> 06:43:31 cayce: 06:43:32 "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 two things 06:43:53 relies on timing 06:44:07 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 thus making that impossible 06:44:34 but if they know they've got 5 minutes 06:44:39 (ish) 06:44:40 they don't 06:44:50 block discovery is highly unpredictabl 06:44:53 unpredictable * 06:44:59 I've noticed 06:45:00 you can find 3 blocks in a minute 06:45:03 and then none for an hour 06:45:05 35s apart, 22minutes apart 06:45:18 hence making discovery guesses infeasible 06:45:21 so that breaks that part of the attack 06:45:40 why don't you write a takedown of the report 06:45:50 not as if you have time for it, I know 06:45:51 Post says that it has specifics of state machine that btc forms that proves it, have you read it? 06:45:55 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 *it = paper 06:46:01 but again, you probably didn't read what I said to mk either 06:46:07 MK_FG; I couldn't yet because the generated PDF was broken yesterday 06:46:11 because arxiv sucks balls 06:46:17 .btc 06:46:27 so so far I've only had this article to go off 06:46:30 .bitcoin 06:46:30 1 BTC = $247.99, 1 BTC = €188.00 06:46:33 joepie91, "maintain a longer private chain" - for few seconds, it should be possible 06:46:34 :) 06:46:35 same reason I haven't written a response to it yet 06:46:41 because missing info 06:46:46 cc cayce 06:46:56 hollar when you post it (if you do) 06:46:57 You just do head-start mining and publish your block e.g. a few secs later 06:47:04 I'm going to read the paper tomorrow 06:47:22 must sleep now, is 47m past bedtime 06:47:23 MK_FG: except that only works for as long as you can maintain the longer chain 06:47:37 and you -don't- publish it a few secs later 06:47:43 Yeah, you risk loosing that head-start there 06:47:44 because that would make the rest of the miners switch to the new block 06:47:50 thus making a continued headstart impossible 06:47:56 Umm 06:47:59 as you cannot ever be more than 1 block ahead 06:48:08 Yes, and that's fine 06:48:17 it makes the attack described in the article impossible 06:48:21 You don't loose head-start by publishing block though 06:48:27 you do 06:48:46 You already know N nonces that don't yield valid block 06:48:48 your headstart is counted in blocks, not in computing time spent 06:48:51 Others don't 06:48:55 That's head-start 06:49:08 *that's head-start I mean 06:49:13 MK_FG: aside from that not mattering much in the "grander scheme of mining", the target value changes each block 06:49:19 if I am not mistaken 06:49:35 which means that information becomes useless the moment your block is mined/published 06:50:03 Each next block needs accepted hash of the last, yeah 06:50:11 yes 06:50:15 But as a person who has that "last" block, you have it 06:50:24 So you can immediately start mining next one 06:50:28 so does everyone else 06:50:38 Not if you don't publish it! 06:50:42 MK_FG: right, I see what you mean now, but that doesn't seem to me like it matters muc 06:50:45 much * 06:50:59 and 12 seconds into your lead somebody else finds a block and pubs 06:50:59 Hence he says that paper has maths to prove that it does 06:51:01 lead lost 06:51:11 ...which can't be summed in a few words, apparently 06:51:14 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 even if you haven't found it yet 06:51:26 you have the 'base value' 06:51:29 hmm 06:51:40 MK_FG: the thing is that the article speaks of "extending lead" 06:51:41 seems like it'd only work inside of other blocks being found 06:51:48 and seems to imply being more than one block ahead 06:51:54 so are you sure you're talking about the same kind of attack? 06:52:06 * cayce shrugs + sleeps 06:52:54 "They keep their new discovery secret as well, and work on extending their lead." - yeah, they do extend lead 06:53:14 As when finding next block sooner than everyone else, they won't publish it either 06:53:31 So they get more head-start on third one 06:53:36 And even more on fourth one 06:53:41 And so on 06:54:10 Maybe spanning few blocks of such unpublished head-start eventually 06:54:40 ...is how I understand it, but didn't read the paper either, don't like math that much ;) 06:57:46 MK_FG: the problem is 06:57:48 how do they do that? 06:57:52 they have a minority of mining power 06:58:06 their chances of building a longer chain than the majority of miners are small 06:58:55 True 06:59:19 Indeed, it seems that to maintain it in exactly that way, you have to win every time 07:00:05 So guess it's only viable when/if such selfish mining pools get enough of an edge over everyone else 07:00:28 MK_FG; which seems to defeat the point of "an attack that requires less than 50% of the network" :) 07:00:30 Not necessarily the majority though, given that they have a bit of an advantage 07:00:40 I think that 07:00:43 I doubt it's -this- much of an advantage 07:00:55 that's the separate point.... about <50% 07:01:11 I mean, you're basically just describing a split chain attack at this point 07:01:54 *** iceTwy (iceTwy@cryto-610769D0.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #crytocc 07:03:33 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 still doesn't answer how the private branch is getting there in the first place :| 07:05:08 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 ElectRo`: except you can't actually do that 07:06:35 because by the time alice sees that bob found a block, bobs block will have been published 07:06:38 Hence the paper is longer than one sentence... :P 07:06:39 and yours will be rejected 07:08:03 he assumes alot of things 07:08:10 the requirements are too high 07:08:12 Focus is apparently on analyzing the effort spent by slefish miners vs honest rest 07:08:54 ...and making the latters' go to waste ;) 07:10:29 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 k.. 07:11:58 *** iceTwy has quit (Ping timeout) 07:12:00 Hmm 07:12:15 Page 6 calc seem to solve that problem 07:12:31 ...somewhat 07:13:13 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 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 Looks like even advantage of 2 blocks indeed gets nullified eventually, but still gives more rewards than honest mining 07:18:37 MK_FG, this doesn't seem right: http://owely.com/0lB40y 07:19:17 wouldn't it release its full branch when the public chain was 1 behind instead of 2? 07:19:41 so what's that doing there :| 07:20:35 oh 07:20:40 no, I see how it works 07:20:52 mental off-by-one error :) 07:23:05 Ok, no way I'm reading past page 10 ;) 07:24:54 my mind tunes out of too many maths also 07:25:38 *** cayce (cayce@cayce.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc 07:26:55 I still scrolled to section 5 and summaries after it and found them more appealing ;) 07:29:31 "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 MK_FG : two observations 07:31:25 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 actually, 4 observations 07:31:40 2. it's a social attack rather than a technical one 07:31:58 3. the paper doesn't address what happens when there are multiple selfish mining pools 07:32:18 4. this is exactly the cartel attack that was already explained before 07:32:19 Indeed, I also wonder about 3 07:32:48 And I'd argue that if it can be implemented in code, it's not that social ;) 07:33:01 Just a different algo 07:33:35 MK_FG: it -is- a social attack 07:33:41 the actual attack isn't the increase in revenue 07:33:45 that's just an incentive 07:34:03 Um, it is increase in revenue of selfish pool 07:34:23 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 and gaining control over the bitcoin network 07:34:40 which is a social attack 07:34:52 it relies on "luring people in", basically 07:35:00 Oh, I didn't realy read it like that, but yeah, guess that implication is a social one 07:35:20 I mean, the private chain in itself, while annoying, isn't really a protocol-breaking thing 07:35:21 Otherwise, for pools above threshold with no interest in control it's just technical 07:35:46 And yeah, guess not that much of an "attack", just cool feature 07:35:53 and that's where the multiple pool question comes in :) 07:37:55 observation 5: the paper does not mathematically address/prove the implications of their "fix" for the effectiveness of the attack 07:38:03 which is a little odd 07:39:30 Cartel attack indeed looks similar 07:58:48 enough wackos in the comments section 07:59:00 but I can't say the author is responding very properly either 07:59:11 'Your rebuttal has to contain math (e.g. "not that much" isn't numerate), or else it has no information content.' 07:59:14 I mean, really? 08:12:58 He has few next blogposts as replies to these, too ;) 08:33:58 *** mama (me@cryto-E0CDAE98.puckey.org) 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 (iceTwy@cryto-610769D0.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #crytocc 11:50:15 *** ElectRo` (x@cryto-C630644E.is.a.tor.exit.server.torland.is) 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 .tw https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/398072699588595713 13:43:54 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 .tw https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/398078132424417280 13:43:56 Fire in a side building-- library, data, people all safe. Please donate to help us rebuild https://archive.org/donate Thank you. (@internetarchive) 13:50:04 *** crytoweb946 (crytoweb94@cryto-DFF24FBA.superkabel.de) has joined #crytocc 13:50:31 *** crytoweb946 has quit (User quit: Page closed) 14:05:03 *** ttmbRAT (ttmbRAT@cryto-50B0120F.us-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com) has joined #crytocc 14:06:25 *** ttmbRAT has quit (User quit: Connection closed) 14:13:51 :O 14:14:15 *** GHOSTnew (GHOSTnew@GHOSTnew.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc 14:16:59 fuck, what happened? 14:24:18 *** Sprinbit (Sprinbit@ED07FC1.C62D67A7.404FEFB4.IP) has joined #crytocc 14:27:11 norbert79; fire in scanning center next door 14:32:39 joepie91: Just read... What was the cause? (not that it would be that important,,,) 14:33:16 no idea 14:36:47 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 wow... 14:48:10 norbert79, cayce, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYZUtBdCUAAW6ey.jpg:large 14:48:14 this is what is left of the scanning facility 14:48:17 :/ 14:48:58 gutted 14:55:36 fuck 14:55:39 looks bad 15:02:00 yeas :( 15:02:04 yes * 15:04:37 *** x (foobar@C35CA8A8.589C91BA.8F6A2B14.IP) has joined #crytocc 15:08:53 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYZXbYiCIAAnZ4r.jpg:large 15:09:17 what's that about? 15:09:30 .tw https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/398072699588595713 15:09:31 .tw https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/398078132424417280 15:09:31 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 Fire in a side building-- library, data, people all safe. Please donate to help us rebuild https://archive.org/donate Thank you. (@internetarchive) 15:09:38 wow... 15:09:38 norbert79, cayce, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYZUtBdCUAAW6ey.jpg:large 15:09:38 this is what is left of the scanning facility 15:10:10 o.o 15:10:24 *** terminat0r (terminat0r@1B1EA017.632B5346.58115DA1.IP) has joined #crytocc 15:35:00 *** Pandora (Pandora@cryto-6806BAD.ighost.se) has joined #crytocc 15:35:33 NP: [The Chemical Brothers - Do It Again (Edit)] [Do It Again] [812kbps] DeaDBeeF 0.5.6-3jane 15:37:01 ooooh 15:37:02 man 15:37:15 fucking bullets flying on cryptography mailing list 15:37:17 epic 15:37:30 no punches being held 15:37:31 heh 15:38:47 hmm 15:38:57 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYZet1xCAAA6ko0.jpg:large 15:38:59 there's something I wonder though, and have for a while 15:39:00 cayce: oh? 15:39:04 link? 15:39:18 it's in my email, how do I link to it 15:39:31 web viewer, paste, idk 15:39:40 hold on, trying to find online archives 15:40:17 http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2013-November/005719.html 15:40:20 first mail 15:40:23 anyway 15:40:54 tthanks 15:40:55 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 -t 15:41:27 I wonder how many good cryptos are NOT made because the authors are scared to try and use it 15:41:59 It's like rule #1 don't roll your own crypto, but it still makes me wonder 15:44:18 wow, first time I've seen somebody other than gabriella coleman correctly categorize anonymous 15:44:31 "the amorphous hacktivist group Anonymous." 15:44:42 woot 15:44:45 baby steps! 15:44:47 :3 15:44:48 mm 15:44:49 close 15:44:56 not a hacktivist group 15:45:02 got amorphous right though 15:45:08 No? I'd call it one 15:45:36 and you'd be wrong :) 15:45:45 sure, there's a hacktivist subsection 15:45:45 I'm perhaps interested in what excludes that then :) (though I realize this is officially offtopic for this chan ;) ) 15:45:48 doesn't make it a hacktivist group 15:45:53 see: /b/ 15:46:16 I don't characterize /b/ by hacking though 15:46:24 that's kinda the point 15:46:25 (broadly defining hacking, here) 15:47:07 well, I also don't equate /b/ and anon, so I'm unsure of comparability 15:47:13 >_> 15:47:27 there are anons on /b/ that haev absolutely nothing to do with either hacking or activism 15:47:29 let alone both 15:47:45 yep 15:47:54 hence not a hacktivist group 15:47:58 that's just the part that hit most headlines 15:47:59 * cayce remembers /i/nvasion, back in the day 15:51:23 oh man 15:51:35 crunchbase is suing people using their CC data 15:51:38 Yesterday I changed my WiFi Name to "Hack If You Can". When I checked it today was "Challenge Accepted" 15:51:45 cayce: huh? 15:51:51 tech crunch? 15:51:57 they have a db of company info "crunchbase" 15:52:05 api to axx it all 15:52:07 etc 15:52:15 but the data itself is released CreativeCommons 15:52:31 problem? AOL (crunchbase/tc's parent) are trying to sue some company for using the data 15:52:39 eff peed on them in response 15:52:46 lol 15:52:46 just a little tinkle 15:52:47 lol 15:53:06 http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/05/crunchbase-people-plus/ 15:53:24 or the one that broke the story 15:53:24 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/11/aol-crunchbase-cc-flap/ 15:53:34 "AOL Smacks Startup for Using CrunchBase Content It Gave Away" 15:53:58 it's one of those situations where they labeled the data CC, but the API is controlled 15:54:23 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 even though (as the eff argues) there's no such right given (due to CC nature of data) 15:55:04 etc 15:57:41 hmm 15:57:53 there are responses to that bitcoin paper too, on the blog I linked 15:57:57 he's written some more articles 15:58:10 if you want to deep dive, may be worth reading his further refutations 15:58:44 I think I'm going to install debian this weekend 15:59:00 since they switched to xfce by default, until august 2014 15:59:09 (for jessie) 16:00:52 and http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2013-November/005727.html 16:00:56 (@ bitcoin) 16:06:00 *** x has quit (Input/output error) 16:27:48 I feel like there should be a "cryptography school" 16:28:07 with freely accessible learning materials re: cryptography, and accessible peer review 16:29:56 Wonder what you meant by "accessible peer review" there 16:30:14 Doesn't seem to fit into "school" model in my head ;) 16:36:09 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 without having to be part of some 'inner circle' and without feeling like you're not going to be welcomed 16:36:36 crypto has a bit of an 'elite' atmosphere hanging around it atm 16:36:40 crypto dev anyway 16:37:10 joepie91: I think the only real challenge there would be instantiating the platform to host that on 16:37:22 crypto-experts would likely be willing to offer their expertise 16:37:36 mmm... 16:37:44 the bulk of it would just be gathering resources and material 16:37:50 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 or MK_FG for that matter 16:38:00 sort of like http://opensecuritytraining.info/ 16:38:17 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 well now that i've tricked you into thinking i'm competent... bahahah 16:39:03 next step: world domination 16:41:13 I think that randombit ML can be considered such a platform, actually 16:41:42 There are plenty of mails like "hey there, I'm a dev of app that does this ... like that .... comments?" 16:42:09 And then someone like e.g. Marsh Ray goes and leaves like 100-page review of that in reply ;) 16:42:36 "mailing list" is already not accessible enough 16:42:50 *** terminat0r has quit (Ping timeout) 16:42:53 You hipsters not liking MLs :P 16:43:02 right now developers are rolling their own crypto incorrectly 16:43:05 because not asking is easier 16:43:08 you need to make it easier to ask 16:43:11 basically 16:43:27 bonus points for having a point of entry into the crypto world without too much commitment 16:45:38 Yeah, maybe some forum on par with stack overflow would be nice to have for such reviews and more generic questions 16:46:03 Crypto part of stack exchange isn't that well suited for discussions like reviews on ML, alas 16:47:30 indeed 16:48:17 Wonder if that discourse forum platform of theirs has same score-based moderation as SE 16:48:43 Because manual moderation sounds like a full-time job for such accessible platform ;) 16:49:32 have you guys seen that language learning web site where people review your work? 16:49:39 it's like.. mocha or something 16:50:09 live mocha 16:50:21 so as part of the "trianing course" and program that they provide 16:50:37 you can do a translation of something, then it gets sent to another user of that nativel anguage to review 16:50:42 interesting concept 16:51:13 *** Zekka has quit (Ping timeout) 16:51:25 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 (zekka@cryto-3375819E.arizona.edu) has joined #crytocc 17:27:34 *** zest (zest@cryto-5871ABAA.snydernet.net) has joined #crytocc 17:28:38 THIS IS A PUBLICALLY LOG.... --- publicly 17:29:48 discourse based sites are starting to pop up here and there, it's kinda nice 17:42:12 zest: speak to dpk about that 17:42:14 :) 17:42:17 oh 17:42:17 what 17:42:18 dpk gone 17:42:34 *** dpk (r00t@cryto-A73D5640.skybroadband.com) has joined #crytocc 17:42:40 what what what 17:42:57 oh, hey zest 17:43:44 joepie91 tells me you are having issues with the more rational spelling of "publicly", attested since 1797 in the OED 17:44:29 i invite you to consider how any other adjective in '-ic' forms an adverbial 17:45:13 zest: there's dpk :) 17:47:54 e.g. magic, basic, aphetic, etc. 17:51:42 *** Zekka has quit (Ping timeout) 18:00:37 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 dpk: whanna impress someone ? 18:01:47 *** Zekka (zekka@Zekka.users.cryto) has joined #crytocc 18:02:04 who? 18:02:10 you 18:05:37 ok, doesn't matter actually, it is a nice channel anyway 18:06:16 hmm 18:08:20 *** Pandora has quit (User quit: Leaving) 18:08:34 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 ah 18:09:17 based on the defined reasons found on Google for spelling it publically vs publicly 18:10:00 Fairly sure he rather meant that it's "publically" that looks more impressive, so dpk kinda failed at that with "publicly" ;) 18:10:53 MK_FG: the topic in this channel is "THIS IS A PUBLICALLY...." 18:10:58 joepie91, How about "log of the channel is available on the nets"? :P 18:11:11 So, opposite of what you said 18:11:12 :) 18:11:17 Oh, right 18:11:33 Jeez this is confusing 18:11:47 I can't even tell these words apart 18:12:07 lol 18:12:08 also 18:12:13 I ran across this in a spec I was reading 18:12:14 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 joepie91, did you eventually get your hardware back after the raid? 18:13:07 Heh, which spec is that? 18:13:50 Also, Sauroposeidon? Didn't know they named these reptiles after greek gods 18:13:52 connor: not yet, I will make sure to make it known when I do 18:13:58 MK_FG: http://zoom.z3950.org/api/zoom-1.4.html 18:14:52 right ok 18:15:40 Wow, it's not even long spec ;) 18:19:24 :( 18:19:24 http://preev.com/ 18:19:29 is broken 18:19:39 can anyone else get it to work? 18:19:54 joepie91 whats another BTC converter 18:20:15 how do you mean? 18:21:01