• [\\\\] joined the channel
      • luke-jr_ joined the channel
      • gwollon joined the channel
      • nickler_ joined the channel
      • cfields joined the channel
      • TheSeven has quit
      • iddo_ joined the channel
      • [7] joined the channel
      • Alanius_ joined the channel
      • EasyAt_ joined the channel
      • pigeons_ joined the channel
      • Burrito has quit
      • pigeons_ is now known as Guest15943
      • CryptOprah_ joined the channel
      • Pan0ram1x_ joined the channel
      • phantomcircuit_ joined the channel
      • nsh- joined the channel
      • K1773R_ joined the channel
      • irc88____ joined the channel
      • pigeons has quit
      • irc88___ has quit
      • EasyAt has quit
      • gwillen has quit
      • phantomcircuit has quit
      • Luke-Jr has quit
      • nsh has quit
      • K1773R has quit
      • jaromil_ is now known as jaromil
      • nickler has quit
      • Pan0ram1x has quit
      • CryptOprah has quit
      • coryfields has quit
      • Pan0ram1x_ is now known as Pan0ram1x
      • K1773R_ is now known as K1773R
      • CryptOprah_ is now known as CryptOprah
      • Pan0ram1x is now known as Guest53956
      • Krellan has quit
      • Krellan joined the channel
      • Alanius has quit
      • tacotime has quit
      • iddo has quit
      • [\\\] has quit
      • [\\\\] is now known as [\\\]
      • hearn has quit
      • copumpkin has quit
      • copumpkin joined the channel
      • copumpkin has quit
      • mkarrer_ has quit
      • mkarrer joined the channel
      • todaystomorrow joined the channel
      • Guest15943 is now known as pigeons
      • todays_tomorrow has quit
      • at0mat has quit
      • irc88____ has quit
      • tacotime joined the channel
      • luke-jr_ is now known as Luke-Jr
      • llllllllll has quit
      • harrow has quit
      • harrow joined the channel
      • harrow has quit
      • harrow joined the channel
      • discreetrowan joined the channel
      • ebfull joined the channel
      • p15 has quit
      • Dr-G3 joined the channel
      • Dr-G2 has quit
      • px1NbxQzEC joined the channel
      • mappum joined the channel
      • copumpkin joined the channel
      • TheDerpSquad has quit
      • TheDerpSquad joined the channel
      • rdponticelli has quit
      • TheDerpSquad has quit
      • wallet42 has quit
      • mapppum joined the channel
      • jtimon has quit
      • mappum has quit
      • moa has quit
      • aburan28 has quit
      • rdponticelli joined the channel
      • justanot1eruser joined the channel
      • justanotheruser joined the channel
      • justanotheruser has quit
      • Aquent has quit
      • [7] has quit
      • TheSeven joined the channel
      • at0mat joined the channel
      • at0mat has quit
      • phantomcircuit_ is now known as phantomcircuit
      • EasyAt_ is now known as EasyAt
      • justanot1eruser
        Will sidechains really be able to arbitrarily have things like scrypt? Seems like scrypt would have to be a predefined sidechain option, or the definition of the sidechain rules would be very big and cause bloat
      • EasyAt has quit
      • EasyAt joined the channel
      • And if it's not in the transaction, it would have to be in the SPV proof
      • perhaps there is a better way to do this that I'm missing.
      • discreetrowan has quit
      • OneFixt has quit
      • OneFixt joined the channel
      • andytoshi
        you'd have a translator sidechain that knows the rules for sha256d and the rules for scrypt, and translates between them somehow
      • licnep_ has quit
      • s/somehow/by virtue of allowing transfers to sha256d chains as well as transfers to scrypt ones/
      • tacotime
        somewhat dumb question: why do uncompressed pubkeys serialize to 65 bytes instead of 64? X and Y together are only 64 bytes
      • nm, found the answer
      • mappum joined the channel
      • mapppum has quit
      • justanot1eruser
        andytoshi: wouldn't the spv proof for the 2nd level sidechain need to be in the mainchain anyways?
      • andytoshi
        no, you'd have to redeem to the translator chain before redeeming to the mainchain
      • as far as the mainchain would be aware, you moved the coins to the translator chain. it doesn't know or care that you later move that same coin to some scrypt chain and beyond
      • justanot1eruser
        and the translator chain contains the data to make scrypt possible?
      • andytoshi
      • it'd be sufficient if the translator chain was sha256d-mined but understood scrypt spv proofs
      • and if that was literally all that the translator chain did
      • justanot1eruser
        Have PoS sidechains been discussed?
      • BlueMatt
        justanot1eruser: why would you do that?
      • torsthaldo has quit
      • of course I dont have any idea why the hell you'd want to do a scrypt sidechain either
      • justanot1eruser
        BlueMatt: because it may be more secure
      • BlueMatt: I don't want a scrypt sidechain
      • I was just using that as an example
      • andytoshi
        on a high level, the story is the same ... just need a translator chain that understands the PoS proofs
      • but what PoS proofs look like idk
      • i expect they'd have to be totally trust-based because every proof would be forgeable by standard nothing-at-stake
      • justanot1eruser
        anyways, I wanted to discuss PoS sidechains because I don't think PoS in currencies has been discussed much (at least from what I've seen) other than PoS for bootstrapping distributed consensus
      • kanzure
        PoS isn't just for bootstrapping
      • justanot1eruser
        andytoshi: would they? You know I am referring to PoS-in-mainchain
      • kanzure: "PoS in currencies"
      • I meant to secure currencies
      • andytoshi
        justanot1eruser: i'd have to think about that
      • it's a neat idea, pseudo
      • psudo-centralized sidechain to avoid scaling issues with the mainchain, has a different security model wrt history rewriting
      • justanot1eruser
        satoshi would constantly have 5% forging power
      • andytoshi
        yeah, sure
      • i suspect the devil is in the details
      • justanot1eruser
      • andytoshi
        e.g. you can't conscript every mainchain participant, but you need to be sybil resistant somehow
      • how do you deal with almost everybody not knowing/caring about individual sidechains?
      • BlueMatt
        justanot1eruser: yes, because most people have concluded that PoS is largely useless
      • wasnt there a case where someone did a huge reorg on a PoS chain because they had legitimately (ie because they were hacked) lost money?
      • putting mining power in the hands of an economic majority doesnt make all that much sense...
      • sure, there may be specific cases where it makes sense, but in those cases you can possibly just trust the economic majority...no need for any consensus
      • andytoshi
        i think if you could come up with unilateral withdrawal you could have a chain with these ephemeral pos sidechains that only work until trust breaks down, then cleanly reabsorb into the main chain
      • where the benefit of the sidechain is, people not participating don't have to track it, you get a bit of privacy and scalability
      • but that's a pretty enormous if :P
      • BlueMatt
        andytoshi: hmm? I'm confused as to how thats useful
      • and, yes, sure, on a tertiary chain you can do whatever you want, including unilateral withdraw to a secondary chain
      • justanot1eruser
        BlueMatt: PoS isn't largely usless
      • bootstrapping consensus through PoS is though
      • BlueMatt
        this is the conclusion I've seen a lot of people come to, and I havent seen a particularly useful case yet...
      • justanot1eruser
        BlueMatt: How about this for a useful case: PoS to stop spam