500+ entries in 0.0s
mp_en_viaje: neways, anyone having something
to say on
that (or any other) matter,
they're welcome
to do it on
the blog.
mp_en_viaje: shocking, i suppose, but in
the end, it's what we've got.
mp_en_viaje: what i'll do is, come
the 15th ima sweep
the address into one of
the web wallets and pay
the fellows from
there (at
their own risk).
mp_en_viaje: jfw,
thanks, but i don't intend
to stretch it
that far.
jfw: mp_en_viaje: would you like
to schedule a continuation on
the wallet effort (on which I've quite appreciated your role) once I've got my V ducks in a row? I can offer
the same
time
Tuesday.
jfw: re GNAT, it occurs
to me
the better question is not "what does mp_en_viaje have handy" but "what am I going
to
test and require of
the user and support by explaining at whatever level necessary?" Which is not a question for mp_en_viaje at all as stated.
diana_coman: jfw: no, it wouldn't solve
the problem at hand, indeed.
jfw: I mean, I could easily say "use
this gpg command and look for
this message
to verify,
then if
that succeeds run
this patch command", I
tested all
that, it will work, but I don't perceive it
to solve
the problem at hand.
diana_coman: jfw: listen, you do a full
test-run of everything so
that you can properly guide someone step by step and you know 200% what is required and at what point.
jfw: eh, well perl for
that matter
too if I'm listing all
that.
jfw: later mp_en_viaje,
thanks for
the guidance.
jfw: mp_en_viaje: since it looks like I've some zipper debt
to catch up on here, I'll ask - do you have GNAT available on
the system you intend
to press on? Because
that's an indirect dependency here, but I
think I can avoid it if need be.
diana_coman: it does at
that; and my "starter"
thing
there is precisely a stopgap;
that comes...miraculously handy at
times but still apparently not worth checking upfront or something, huh.
diana_coman: jfw: why don't you
take
the zip, do
the
test run and
then you know and can
tell ?
diana_coman: I
think it states quite clearly what it presses
to; is
that not enough for what you need?
mp_en_viaje: i'm willing
to pay a visit, but... can i have like... a chair ? because no, "sit anywhere" isn't really an equivalent
mp_en_viaje: invented whatever, iirc i just recognized
the importance of shit other people came up with. but more's
the point : you sit
there "ready for sex" but you don't know where your zipper is or how it opens ? "any way!!!" ? wtf how are we
to satisfyingly copulate here ?
jfw: That I'm misusing
the
tool you invented and haven't fully
tested a better process?
mp_en_viaje: i'm not specifically
trying
to be an asshole here, even
though i apparently manage splendidly regardless. do you see what might make a different me
throw up his hands at
this juncture ?
jfw: hey, I preserved as much of
the history as I could
mp_en_viaje: i dunno why more people don't read more code. i swear
to god usg-sponsored "comedy" is nowhere near as funny.
mp_en_viaje: +already removed it. Needed
to store
to a
temporary.
mp_en_viaje: +1. Read/write ordering bug in pop() -- returned
top of stack after having
mp_en_viaje: alright. so
then it's really gscm and gbw-signer
that i want,
the first being what, your hand-rolled mathlib ?
jfw: It does not, in
the sense
that you can supply
the inputs from whatever source you wish.
jfw: lol! perhaps
the offline part is fine after all
mp_en_viaje: this premise is contrary
to
the other premise, a secure system is specifically one
that doesn't do everything.
mp_en_viaje: otherwise you will find yourself stuck
trying
to somehow make
the red machine also include lasers, "just in case it needs
to protect
the owner from rubber hose cryptanalisis".
mp_en_viaje: so don't you
try solving
the grave problem of
the user being entirely surrounded by a sybil inside
the secure code. let him worry about
that outside
the box.
mp_en_viaje: hitler essentially lost
the war by making ever bigger
tanks. "bigger is better". wel... it sure as fuck makes a better
target...
jfw: er I mean,
the absolute view point is interesting, which I guess is
that ...the sybil case is not interesting?
mp_en_viaje: yes, "if one is surrounded by a sybil". do you know
the story of
the man who made a submarine so strong, it'd have withstood even falling off a cliff ?
jfw: adds
tamper resistance, unless one is surrounded by a sybil.
This is interesting
though, re absolute view
mp_en_viaje: see,
this is what i mean above : you
take a very absolute view, which happens
to be inadequate. "how is
the secure machine
to know" is not an interesting problem in
the absolute sense you contemplate it.
mp_en_viaje: well it'd kinda seem
that's what publicity does : adds
tamper resistence.
jfw: mp_en_viaje: yes. I don't
think I'm confused in
the suggested way: can't information be public but still sensitive
to
tampering?
mp_en_viaje: as an extension of
the miner-upon-holders attack
that resulted in
the original bitbet death.
mp_en_viaje: but yes,
the principal problem with "self-baked"
tx is
that it is in some cases possible for someone
to re-write
the
tx such as
to, for instance,
take your inputs as fees for
themselves.
jfw: diana_coman: not as I'd conceived it but seems
that's what we're
trying
to determine
mp_en_viaje: yeah ; we've not even arrived at
that point
jfw: mp_en_viaje:
the gasp reflects
that
there are ways
to mess up even
the offline signature computation.
mp_en_viaje: in other words, i
think your premises, not here, but in general, your ~manner of
thinking~ is broken, in
that you confuse very unlike
things.
mp_en_viaje: jfw,
there's nothing
to
trust. what am i
trusting ?
that indeed address x holds y ?
this isn't
the sort of
thing
that requires
trust
jfw: If it is acceptable
to you
to install new software on a machine with
the private key, and
to
trust
the inputs from somewhere online (possibly correlating from multiple sources),
then we might have basis
to continue. (catching up...)
mp_en_viaje: you don't need a secure machine
to "find it on its own"
mp_en_viaje: the problem of security is distinguishing public from private information.
the fact
that address X holds Y is not even controversial, but eminently public info
diana_coman: jfw: does
the above mean
that
the "offline" part includes
trb?
jfw: The main fusing as far as I see is
that it can't even be established what your pile of coin is without
trusting at least one online machine
mp_en_viaje: anyway,
thanks for going
through it with me ; i hope
the exercise might've been informative
to you as well.
mp_en_viaje: well, if
they're fused at
the hip so
to speak, i don't
think it would.
jfw: It sounds like
this does not help with what you presently want
to do.
jfw: Alright. What I have is a program
that could be included on a secure machine built now, with which
to do
that computation, and a companion program
that can suggest what you might use for its inputs given an online machine.
mp_en_viaje: if
this reduces
to "you must do your computation on a machine wtih a node running" i am not interested -- it's definitely no different, and self-evidently mroe expensive
than using a -- say -- web wallet.
mp_en_viaje: well i dunno. let's see, again. what i'd like
to do is produce a broadcastable
tx such as
to pay
the fellows in question out of
the pile of coin i have.
jfw: I suppose I'm
the one making assumptions
then. Should I have started a node up by seeking again
to establish which pieces you needed?
jfw: ah, sure; but I'm perhaps lost at where you're seeing
the node as part of
the secure system, because yeah, not so secure if net-connected.
mp_en_viaje: you see how
these aren't comensurate at all ?
mp_en_viaje: it's one
thing
to say "well mister... no secure systems made before
this date are practically useful anymore, because
they must include
this mb, and so it's practical
to make NEW ones, including it". it is ANOTHER
thing
to say "your secure system must actually be always-on connected
to a net interface and via
trb at
that"
jfw: THough
the whole implementation needing
to be
typed manually in one line of awk/bc is perhaps
the bigger block atm.
mp_en_viaje: that's okay, not like it's your job. but your offline wallet is ~maybe~ problematic, especially if i'm correct in not comprehending how is it supposed
to actually do any useful work for a secure system.
jfw: It does in
that I see a
typo finder would be useful; I fall short in not having one
to offer now.
mp_en_viaje: it maybe provides you
the same sort of benefit.
mp_en_viaje: it provides me, for instance,
the knowledge
that among
the
things
that need fixing in an "eventual pgp implementation" such as will never likely be, a
typo finder'd be quite useful. i even know HOW useful, by practical, real, lived measure.
mp_en_viaje: i'm not saying whether
this is reasonable or not, but it is, in its context, justified as described. it's part of something, it lives somewhere.
mp_en_viaje: by extension from
this -- and i am not mincing words when i say CULTURAL
TRADITION -- i expected our adventure
today would be rather similar, "this is
the
thing for
the red machine, and
these are
the
things you'll have
to
type in it : privkey,
txid,
txcount, so on".
mp_en_viaje: now, i didn't do
this because "i absolutely needed
to", obviously. i chose
to do it, for instance
to keep my harem in good shape, and informed, connected
to
the world such as it is, immersed in reality as it were. i believe in such
things.
mp_en_viaje: this
takes
time,
typos occur,
there's even a script
to check lines individually because obviously gpg is
too dumb
to mark WHERE an error likely lies in a broken pad.
mp_en_viaje: then a response would come out, and she'd
type
that.
mp_en_viaje: the ~reason~
they were
there was
that now and again i'd break out
the red machine, which is an actual machine, and a slavegirl would sit in front of it, and
type, by her pretty little hand, meaningless strings, from
the black machinery connected
to y'all and everything else.
mp_en_viaje: i dunno if you've noticed, but irrespective : at some point while i was
travelling,
there were half-hour-ish delays introduced in various processes, such as me upping myself. i even mentioned
these in
the logs specifically now and again.
mp_en_viaje: let me
tell you how
this went in my head :
jfw: There are
two parts, one online and one offline.
That awk program requires inputs.
These have
to come from somewhere.
mp_en_viaje: i mean... i dunno how
to put it, you can do
the job of producing raw
tx by awk and bc in command line, and i don't mean lineS, i mean one fucking line,
though it may run long.
mp_en_viaje: but doesn't it strike you as at best odd
to call
this an offline anything ?
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-09 22:26:10 jfw: mp_en_viaje: do you have a specific goal in mind for
Thursday's wallet work? Do you also want
to use
the online part (I would imagine so but could
technically be done without)? If so, note
that it
takes about a day
to scan
the present blockchain once fed
the address(es) of interest, and requires a
TRB node. If you wish
to also send
the rawtx using it, as would be most proper, we'll also need
that
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-07 18:59:37 jfw: Can I assume you have an x86_64 unixlike with gcc for
the install?
mp_en_viaje: wait, come again ? it requires less resources... ON
TOP of whatever bitcoind wants ? so it's not exactly
twofold ?
jfw: Its additional disk usage is proportional
to
the number of addresses you
tell it
to watch plus
the
txes and outputs affecting
them.
jfw: right you are... I did assume
the V part, huh. gbw-node requires less resources
than bitcoind itself, but does require bitcoind.
mp_en_viaje: now
then, is gbw-node a node, in
the sense
that it'll want
to eat a metric
ton of ram and piddle blockchain vomit on
the disk at such a massive rate as
the "too small" mb blocks require ?
mp_en_viaje: well, gcc doesn't know what
to do with genesises, so
there's a gap.
jfw: mp_en_viaje: I didn't
think
there was such a
thing established, indeed, hence
the question
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-07 18:59:37 jfw: Can I assume you have an x86_64 unixlike with gcc for
the install?
jfw: The installation recipes are at package/README in each
tree.
jfw: mp_en_viaje: I'm available should you still wish
to have a look at
the wallet.
diana_coman: dorion: ah, initially it was I guess because of blender; but meanwhile blender will not get
to do much/be supported anyway.
dorion: diana_coman ok.
ty, I asked because it was mentioned in your
notes, albeit with skepticism.
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-12 01:31:41 dorion: sorry for
the busted lines. mp_en_viaje, diana_coman, does eulora use python for anything ?