Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
SW is a solution for transaction malleability.

Solving malleability is essential for Lightning Network, but just "nice to have" for Bitcoin transactions.

I wouldn't expect Blockstream to have put much more than a cursory effort into using SW for fraud proofs, because their primary concern is LN.
yep, it is essential for LN. and yeah, why haven't they developed the fraud proofs yet?

the other nice things it purports to offer though is the ability to easily change from ECDSA to Schnorr signatures in the future via the flexible Script versioning, the ability to prune 60% of blockchain data (sigs, fraud proofs), fraud proofs themselves. btw, i'm not sure this flexible new system Script Versioning is a good thing. from the Bitcoin Developer's Guide:

"Turing-incompleteness (specifically, a lack of loops or gotos) makes the script language less flexible and more predictable, greatly simplifying the security model."

https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#p2pkh-script-validation
 

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
Nothing was suggested in that other thread that we don't already know but Adam has correctly identified that the relay network renders the node's power to not relay txns less potent. But that does not make BUs change harmful. In fact its the centralized relay network that is harmful. What if it decided to only forward 100kb txns or shut down?

WRT SPV mining my work is the only indepth analysis of it so its silly to claim it is not considered. And if > 50pct of the network is doing so and never validating (as opposed to mining 1txn blocks during validation) Bitcoin has a big problem. This has nothing to do with BU.
[doublepost=1451857147][/doublepost]Also someone should point out that I am the originator of the flexcap family of ideas just to try to break the echo chamber going on in there...
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
@theZerg
the relay network renders the node's power to not relay txns less potent
This has been my concern for some time. However, the rollout of BU should not be slowed or even criticized just because of centralized irregularities in the existing network. I think we need an early BUIP for Mike's thin blocks (hopefully he is OK with that). In fact maybe we should co-ordinate with XT on a joint release of this feature. It is important that the relay network is diminished in relevance by making all nodes capable of efficient block propagation. IBLT and/or subchains is just too far away so a stop-gap is needed. What do you think of this?
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
yep, i've been a critic of the relay network's centralizing tendencies and it's incentivization of bad behaviour by miners forever.

also, if Adam uses the relay network as an argument against BU, then the same argument can be used against SW fraud proofs as it changes the security model away from depending on miners to that of depending on full node fraud proofs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

chainstor

New Member
Aug 28, 2015
16
25
Let the Evangelism begin:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3zc6qg/review_of_shelling_point_protocol_selection_ideas/

edit: worthy of a double post :)
[doublepost=1451869305,1451868441][/doublepost]
This is a key risk of development tending towards group-think as "outsiders" are excluded over time. RBF, as proposed by Todd, and preference for soft-forks would both have been solid grounds for developers to be sacked in Banking IT where I have worked for 15+ years.

Simply idiotic proposals which would have been laughed out of contention, followed by pink slips for all promoting such anti-user, reckless experimentation on a network valued in billions.
I was thinking the same. :cool: For a system that prides itself on immutability, it seems odd. Until you consider that its ultimately needed so that LN will work. Seems a huge price to pay for what is still a 'concept'
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@awemany
You are very welcome to our meetups! We usually have a few speeches on different topics, and it would be great if you did one on BU.

We often have speeches in english, and we also speak english in the more informal sessions (beer) if at least one guy at the table doesn't speak norwegian.

The dates are published here: http://www.meetup.com/Oslo-Bitcoin-Meetup/

Welcome!
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and Inca

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Norway,

I am keen to visit Norway and cycle round some fjords next summer. I may pop along to a meet!

;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
@Peter R
Please paste your reply here so it is recorded anyway.
 

Bloomie

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2015
510
803
At least Peter's ban is temporary. At least 2 other users have reported being banned simply for pointing out that Bitcointalk was not a neutral forum (which were merely responses to Back's oblivious statement that it was neutral), and at least one of those bans is permanent. The goddamn irony.
 

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
WRT @awemany's post, BUIPs, and development priorities: As I'm sure you can see, we can't force any developer to implement a passed BUIP. Their time is their own. So to a large degree the BUIPs should form what we believe the "ideal" client will be without worrying about priorities. Maybe some day we will have a budget to encourage devs, in which case spending out of this budget is (as per the Articles) done via a operational BUIP issued by the President.

However, due to this it may be important to write the BUIP carefully. For example, asking for some fancy handling of (say) RBF may mean nothing gets done whereas if the BUIP just said "comment it out" it would be done easily. In this case BUIPs could be written to state what is amenable and what is preferred, or have a pre-election of the most popular option (like RBF is doing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
No freaking way!

brgdick444 deleted? say it ain't so!
 

Bloomie

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2015
510
803
I think he's trying to say that the deletions were impartial and just, which is, of course, baloney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
let's get this New Year started!

btw, watched The Big Short last night. what a great movie. amazingly enough, i was on anxious pins and needles the whole movie as it was a great and pretty solid depiction of the events as they went down during that time. i remember it quite vividly, esp studying CDO tranches at the time, as was quite well modelled by the Jinga blocks. great acting and i remember riding New Century Financial down from 36 to 22 before covering my short. it promptly went all the way to zero as i weeped. from that point i piled into short positions on over a dozen positions in subprime lenders and banks. the scene with Mark Baum and Bruce Miller was riveting as the guys in the audience were watching Bear Stearns spin down. i remember watching that stock plummet on my 1min charts in btwn patients. it was reminiscent of the mtgox flash crash of July 2011 from i think $17 to close to zero from the hack. the Bear Stearns one was better though as you just knew billions were being lost and the volatility both up and down was extraordinary. i could only ride it down partially as once you covered for a significant profit, there were no more short positions to be had as everyone was piling in. what a time that i'll never forget:


[doublepost=1451881459][/doublepost]only problem with the movie is that it never mentions the enabler/facilitator of the boom bust cycles; the gawdammed Fed.
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.