sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
tromp_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<AdrianG>
sha256 cracked?
<AdrianG>
wat
JackH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gnnr has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tachys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<kanzure>
when evaluating reasoning, fallacies are a proof of failure of independent verification.
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
tachys has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|zZz has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
tachys has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<CodeShark>
given that cracking sha256 and cracking ecdsa would probably require very different techniques it would be very strange for both to be cracked the same day...and if such a thing happened, the impact on bitcoin would be the least of our worries :)
<CodeShark>
ecdsa will likely be cracked at some point eventually, though
<CodeShark>
all crypto based on representations of cyclic groups in which computing the log is hard will probably succumb to quantum crypto
<CodeShark>
err, quantum computers
<AdrianG>
just a matter of time.
<sipa>
or not
<AdrianG>
sipa: you dont think ecdsa will eventually be broken by QC?
<CodeShark>
will ECDSA be broken by QC? (1/sqrt[2]) (|yes> + |no>)
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
<sipa>
AdrianG: if general QC is able to scale up to the number of qubits needed to implement EC group operations, it will certainly break it (and by break, i mean reduce to polynomial time attack complexity), if it doesn't, it doesn't
<CodeShark>
it depends on which branch of the multiverse you ultimately find yourself in ;)
<sipa>
at this point i don't think it's established that such a QC is even physically possible
<AdrianG>
sipa: theoretical physics foundation or engineering possibility?
<CodeShark>
it's a tough problem...but I think with error correction and good engineering, barring any serious problems with quantum mechanics it seems very plausible
<CodeShark>
perhaps the constraint here is thermodynamic
<CodeShark>
inherently thermodynamic
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
barring any serious issues with the theory, that is
<AdrianG>
i dont think we have any explicit theoretical limitations on scaling.
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jeremy_Rand_2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<CodeShark>
that article is interesting...but I think the more fundamental problem is period finding...factorization is reduced to period finding, but period finding is what we're ultimately after. the factorization tricks are interesting but only seem to lead to special cases of weak choices of prime pairs
<AdrianG>
CodeShark: sure, its a bunch of tricks + 4 quibts.
rusty has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
<CodeShark>
so 4 qubits is the current NMR record, eh?
<CodeShark>
NMR seemed promising largely because the equipment required to perform such computations already exists
<AdrianG>
and now we have 2 qubit gates in silicon
<maaku>
NV diamond qubits can get you basically any size entangled state ... if you had atomic precision over manufacturing
<CodeShark>
but NMR seems to be very limited in scalability
<AdrianG>
we know how to scale silicon.
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<AdrianG>
"Remember that quantum computers have obsessed internet weirdos for as long as the concept has existed."
<AdrianG>
lol
<sipa>
obligatory xkcd 465
Jeremy_Rand_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
the three most confusing pieces of nomenclature in the scientific literature of the last couple decades: "quantum teleportation", "genetic cloning", "bitcoin address"
belcher has quit [Quit: Leaving]
NLNico has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phantomcircuit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit [Changing host]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
"quantum teleportation" is an outright misappropriation of the term, to grab headlines. :-( Scientists should be more honest and less sensationalist.
rustyn has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
zookolaptop has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
JackH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
smk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
JackH has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
desantis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
JackH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<adam3us>
so with seg-witness the effective block size EBS, witness size WS and block size BS there is an accounting rule that EBS=BS+0.25*WS<1MB this is to encourage space efficient use of both BS and WS. the penalty for inefficient WS use is "artificial" loss of access to some of BS.
<adam3us>
for example if WS=1MB, then BS=750kB and EBS=1.75MB
<adam3us>
where if one was inefficient for some reason used without added functionality WS=2MB then BS=500kB and EBS=1MB penalty of 250kB of BS vs former case
<adam3us>
for selecting transactions it must also be reasonably simple to sort transactions in fee order. for this you calculate fee per EBS kB
<adam3us>
question: is there an alternate sorting rule that incentivises efficient BS & WS use that gives access to BS==1MB while still being a simple sorting function for fee per EBS kB?
<maaku>
i worry we are getting too deep in the weeds in analysis of the BS+0.25*WS metric when jonas' metric provides a better starting point
<aj>
adam3us: i thought "effective" BS was BS+WS, and "virtual" BS was BS+0.25*WS fwiw
<adam3us>
replace EBS with VBS probably yes that was used in sipa presentation
<adam3us>
though it's not so virtual - they are bytes sent over the wire.
<aj>
adam3us: and ttbomk the only way to keep fee calculations "simple" is by having BS+k*WS < l for some k,l
<adam3us>
oh doh. yes you are right!
<adam3us>
maaku: does jonas metric become multi-dimensional?
<maaku>
no
<maaku>
it's a linear function
<maaku>
like sipa's but it includes more terms
<adam3us>
maaku: ok i guess right there is VBS=f(BS,WS,sigops, …)
<aj>
adam3us: call it "block validation cost" at that point, i think?
<maaku>
aj: 'validation cost metric' is the name of the talk ;)
<adam3us>
so how will this function be used. calc function for each tx, sort, fill up block. but how is VBS calculated in this case?
<aj>
maaku: ahhhh, /now/ i remember that talk
<aj>
adam3us: as long as f() is a linear combination of factors, f(BLOCK) = sum f(tx)
<aj>
adam3us: so just keep adding tx's by fee/cost-metric until you hit the limit
<adam3us>
aj: right but how does that penalise inefficient use of metrics if it is not consensus enforceable
tromp_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<aj>
adam3us: oh, i thought the idea was this was what consensus should be enforcing
<adam3us>
aj: VBS < 1MB is enforced
<maaku>
adam3us: it is consensus enforceable...
<maaku>
adam3us: no, the idea is to get rid of this block size stuff entirely
<aj>
adam3us: ie, hard fork to use this formulation rather than separate limits for blocksize and sigops
<maaku>
you fill based on cost metric until either VBS>1MB or cost metric limit is hit
<maaku>
when hard fork eventually happens, drop the VBS>1MB limit
<adam3us>
oh ok. sorry i was focussing on the application of cost metrics to seg-witness in a soft-fork setting
<maaku>
even in a soft fork setting it is still true
<aj>
adam3us: (gmaxwell suggested the other day that you could set things up so that there was an initial hard fork, but then readjusting the parameters every two-years (eg) could be done by soft-fork)
<adam3us>
you can fill it but not enforce it?
<maaku>
because the coefficients are set such that you can never hit VBS>1MB while being under metric
<adam3us>
maaku: ok that was the magic info i was looking for.
<adam3us>
so it is completely analogous
<adam3us>
it is axiomatic that if sum f(tx) < cost-limit then BS < 1MB
<adam3us>
so to generalise it whichever function is used the question becomes is there an alternate penalty mechanism that allows BS==1MB rather than BS < 1MB
NewLiberty has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adam3us>
flexcap things seem possible pay to future miner or higher difficulty (for bloated VBS)
memymo has quit [Client Quit]
smk has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
desantis has quit [Quit: desantis]
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
<jl2012>
any kind of pay-to-increase-block-size scheme is too complicated, and all you need is 51% power to monopolize the network and bypass any rules
<maaku>
jl2012: um, isn't that a fully general argument?
<maaku>
all you need to bypass X is 51% hashpower (actually: 33% [or 25%?])
<jl2012>
yes, but such scheme creates incentive to attack
<maaku>
howso?
<maaku>
(the implementation is actually quite simple, btw)
<jl2012>
i think there are multiple
<jl2012>
if you have a specific one, please give a link
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<maaku>
jl2012: what's the attack incentive?
<jl2012>
it depends on the details of the implementation. If you have a specific implementation in mind, just give me a link to that and I'll analyze
<maaku>
(repo isn't complete, but that commit shows the simplicity of the change)
<jl2012>
as you said: "Yes. If there is a cabal of miners that do not like a vote, there could be a price differential in the price they pay, yes. They are giving up the fees they would have collected. That's a risk, yes. If you are voting against the cabal of miners, then perhaps you have to pay a higher fee. This is unfortunate but not sure what to do."
<maaku>
i'm not sure I'd call that an attack
<jl2012>
so, if your vote is favorable, you don't need to pay any fee
<maaku>
but regardless, that is about the security parameter adjustment, NOT adjustable block size
<jl2012>
if not favorable, pay a lot of fee and still wait for hours
<jl2012>
sounds not very moral
<jl2012>
and since the majority of income is still from inflation, no miner would really care about fee
<maaku>
jl2012: miners are giving up revenue by doing that...
<maaku>
jl2012: i've already stated in the talk and elsewhere, flexcap is unworkable unless fees constitute a sizable amount (majoirty?) of miner revenue
<maaku>
it's a long term proposal
<jl2012>
fee is negligible (at least in the coming 8 years), comparing with allowing an unfavorable vote
<maaku>
i wonder what assumption went into that 8yr number
<adam3us>
problem with paying for incentive to use space efficiently is how much, its set by the market.
<jl2012>
no one would believe miners will collect 12.5BTC fee/block by 2020, do you?
<jl2012>
unless the exchange rate of BTC/USD drops to really low
<jl2012>
Fee is collected as BTC, but it's valued as USD. If that becomes ridiculous, people will stop moving their bitcoin
<jl2012>
well, if block size is something like 20MB by 2020, then 12.5BTC fee is not impossible. Still depends on the value of BTC in USD
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
phantomcircuit has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
phantomcircuit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nuke1989 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<maaku>
jl2012: i would hope that miners collect 12.5btc per block, or else we're all doomed
<maaku>
unless the price of bitcoin goes to the moon, and i'm not basing my projections on that
<maaku>
note that larger blocks means more txns which mean more fee per block
fkhan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
jgarzik has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Changing host]
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<moa>
maaku: not necessarily
fkhan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<jl2012>
maaku: so, if a vote is favorable to 51% of miners, the tx may go through for free. Or even negative fee: miners will pay a big stakeholder to vote for a favorable direction
<jl2012>
as long as they believe that the gain is higher than the negative fee
<kanzure>
this seems to be wrong: "the initial verification of a transaction by a miner is delayed because blocks are propagated on average only every ten minutes"
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<kanzure>
"This approximation assumes that the propagation time is small compared to the target block time." uh.... right, if you assume that bandwidth is not a problem, it would make sense for bandwidth to not be a problem.
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<kanzure>
othe: you have a typo in your github description ("intrgrated")
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] it´s not mine, was just wondering if someone looked at it
<Taek>
"Unlike Visa, Bitcoin's transaction capacity is limited due to miners' hesitation to produce blocks containing large volumes of new transactions. Such blocks propagate across the network slowly, increasing chances that the block is orphaned and the miner's reward is lost."
<kanzure>
Taek: i am almost certain that he is trolling us now. the scenarios have been so thoroughly described that his ignorance of them just seeems.. totally trollish.
<Taek>
"Don't block the stream" -> guy is definitely trolling at least some of the time
<kanzure>
Taek: for example, block propagation to a majority of hashrate can propagate very quickly, increasing low-bandwidth miner orphan rate.
<kanzure>
"don't block hte stream" cannot be easily interpreted as trolling *me*
<kanzure>
amiller: i just approved that email; nobody has had time to read the email.
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<katu>
amiller: looks like merged mining the opposing chainrule to me
King_Rex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<amiller>
well maybe they looked at the forum post already lol
<amiller>
i think it's trying to extract just the mindblowing part of segwit, but not the signature specific details
<kanzure>
i might need some recalibration re: relevance or if that's what you mean about "generalized soft-forks".
<amiller>
looks the same to me
<kanzure>
could you post ze links? i am bbl for great food reasons.
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<amiller>
i posted a reply on bitcointalk
metamarc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
metamarc has quit [Changing host]
metamarc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
weird notation to mark the old chain with a tick`
tucenaber_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<Taek>
I would expect the new chain to have the tick`
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NLNico has quit [Quit: Leaving]
ThomasV has quit [Quit: Quitte]
<Taek>
amiller: I would assert that the definition ZoomT has for a generalized softfork is insufficient, it's not clear from that definition that old nodes have to be able to receive outputs from new addresses
tucenaber_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
the transformation is inherently lossy, but I would say that for a fork to be sufficiently soft you'd want to be able to spend outputs in the new chain in a way that nodes on the old chain can recognize they've received the coins
<Taek>
segwit accomplishes this
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<amiller>
Taek, yeah, it seems to me like it's the case that with the ZoomT definition, coins once spent under the new rules are permanently stuck on that side, and you can't send them to old addresses with a valid transaction.
<amiller>
i dunno maybe that's not the case
<amiller>
i mean the coins that are in the new-rules are always in 'anyonecanspend' purgatory, so whenever the new-rules, that's still ok under anyonecanspend too
<Taek>
Yeah but it matters how easy it is to pull coins out of the 'anyonecanspend' outputs that get created
<Taek>
I guess it wouldn't be too hard to define some rule in your transformation that says 'if anyone spends to an old address, just pull the coins out of the largest available 'anyonecanspend' and create a change output as well'
tucenaber_ has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<amiller>
it's also a bit like doing sidechains, only using softfork majority rather than a separate/mergemined pow chain
<Taek>
softforks provide better security than merged mining, right?
<Taek>
yeah, b/c if you are going to attack a softfork you need to give up revenue on the main chain
<Taek>
but in merged mining you don't need to give up revenue on the bigger chain
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
Quanttek has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<el33th4x0r>
the "generalized soft-fork" discussion is interesting, but it suffers from a syntactic transformation with no semantics attached.
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<el33th4x0r>
so there exists a function f to map from new to old, that's nice, but it also has to be the case that the outcomes in the old chain are the same as the outcomes in the new chain.
<el33th4x0r>
or at least, compatible with them.
<sipa>
it indeed is not a hard fork, but requires upgrading every other piece of bitcoin software that interacts with the chain
<el33th4x0r>
right, the upgrade is required to uphold the desired semantics, yet those semantics are nowhere to be found in the discussion.
<el33th4x0r>
so the discussion feels kind of empty. it's about the syntax and format, without concern for what how the transactions are interpreted, who is awarded money, etc.
stevenroose|BNC is now known as stevenroose
<el33th4x0r>
as a case in point, if a new block B1 awards money to address X, but the corresponding f(B1) awards money to address Y, there is something wrong and the formalism, while nice, fell short
wallet42 has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<Taek>
sipa: requires upgrading all software, but only if you want to access the bigger blocks. Still, a lot more dev overhead than a hardfork.
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
wallet421 has quit [Changing host]
wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet421 is now known as wallet42
erasmosp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
wallet42 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dave4925 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 is now known as Guest59505
Guest59505 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
memymo has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jgarzik>
Taek, nod, that's been one of my points - total LOC changed including upper layer software
tripleslash_o is now known as tripleslash
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sipa has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
gocrazy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gocrazy has quit [Client Quit]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
The reason for having anyonecanspend is so that you can add new functionality with soft forks. As a rule, soft forks can only add restrictions, while hard forks can reduce them. When something is anyonecanspend an old node will accept it if functionality is added in a soft fork.
LeMiner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<bramc>
adam3us, The reason for sipa's metric is to keep things simple. It sacrifices a little bit of potential scale for much simpler logic.
zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tripleslash has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<adam3us>
bramc: yep. i was just brainstorming if there is something "simple enough" that doenst create a mult-dimensional optimisation and gives access to the full 1MB
<bramc>
adam3us, Also you can't just sort by fee/byte. Child pays complicates things a lot.
zookolaptop is now known as zooko
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dizzle has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
copumpkin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
fluffypony has quit [Ping timeout: 259 seconds]
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fluffypony has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fn2187 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
One of the advantages touted by Peter Rizun's 'subchains' paper is security added to zero-conf transactions
zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
"To double-spend a t ransaction included in a subchain, an attacker must produce a weak block with greater fees than the honest subchain before the network finds a strong block"
<Taek>
but, because there is no consensus enforcing the weak block chains, you can simply swap out the one transaction, and other miners will still be able to build on your weak block
<Taek>
especially if they have software sophisticated enough to recognize the small diff
<Taek>
it's also easy enough to add a new transaction to the block that's a really high fee which depends on the double spend
<Taek>
then you can sucessfully execute even without building a longer subchain, all you need is one weak block
memymo has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
zookolaptop has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<kanzure>
"no consensus enforcing the weak block chains, you can simply swap out the one transaction," i thought pow-difficulty requirements remain?
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
King_Rex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Taek>
not the best wording on my part
<Taek>
miners will be building on top of the subchain with the most fees, not on top of the subchain with the most work
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
this does not seem to be inherent in all the weak block proposals...?
<Taek>
yes, I believe that is inherent to all of the weak block proposals, including the mandatory weak block proposals
<Taek>
meaning, no weak block proposals, afaik, improve 0-strong-conf securty
<kanzure>
super-weak blocks are dislaced by stronger weak blocks, i believe. unless the stronger weak blocks reference the earlier weaker weak blocks.
<katu>
simplest zeroconf would be just for p2pool to have majority :)
<kanzure>
*displaced
<kanzure>
"weak blocks" does not mean "difficulty is irrelevant" afaik
Jeremy_Rand_2 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Jeremy_Rand_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
dEBRUYNE_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<Taek>
kanzure: I'm not sure what you mean by 'super-weak blocks are dislaced by stronger weak blocks', are you referring to the nested subchains?
wallet42 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
el33th4x0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitron has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
waxwing has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
memymo has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
waxwing has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
memymo has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Client Quit]
digitalmagus8 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
digitalmagus has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
King_Rex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sipi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
There are various schemes for handling weak blocks. It's prudent to accept multiple ones, since all they're doing is helping with compression.
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
memymo has quit [Client Quit]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
memymo has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
JackH has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
smk has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
memymo has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
memymo has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
matsjj has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rusty has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grandmaster2 has quit [Quit: quit]
licnep has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
memymo has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
smk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<dgenr8>
Taek: agreed. Rizun doesn't talk about subchain reorgs at all. Why assume that a double-spend attacker has to build an attack subchain all by himself? He just needs to get ahead.
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<dgenr8>
However, if a cost of even one weak block were successfully attached to a 0-conf double-spend, that would be a significant development
SgtStroopwafel has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Burrito has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SgtStroopwafel has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
smk has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
cluckj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jcluck has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
pozitrono has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lmatteis has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
lmatteis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
erasmosp_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]