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
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
yoleaux has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Belkaar has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Belkaar has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Belkaar has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Belkaar has quit [Changing host]
darpvader has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
contrapumpkin has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
pro has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luke-jr has quit [Excess Flood]
luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dppsan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dppsan has quit []
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
legogris has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
legogris has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yoleaux has joined #bitcoin-wizards
marcoagner has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
MaxSan has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dizzle has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
_whitelogger has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
danydan has quit []
dabura667 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dabura667 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
veleiro has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CheckDavid has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<JackH>
do we btw have any material on low-level/op_code, that is not necessarily Script/Bitcoin, but general low level op_code's and different mechanisms on low-level interactions?
<JackH>
Its a portion I am looking into quite a lot, but it is difficult to find precisely something that would mimic the architecture of Bitcoin
<JackH>
even if its non decentralized
<kanzure>
how about any interpreted small language ever?
<JackH>
yeah I looked a lot over assembly and microcode as well
<kanzure>
JackH: the topic you are seeking is just "language design". it's a big subtopic in computer science.
<kanzure>
or interpreter design i guess.
<kanzure>
i don't know what you want.
<tromp>
i have an interpreter for the smallest language on my shirt:-)
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<JackH>
I guess I am looking for examples of designs of methods via op_codes in languages. The interest really came after seeing MAST conceived
afk11 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
afk11 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<JackH>
if a softfork locks in, and it is chain specific lock in as sipa said earlier, then for what reason dont we enable a lock-in mechanism on node level after X blocks from activation? Wont this guarantee soft forks locked in, stay locked in? What is the downside?
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
JackH: you are a new node, syncing, far back early in the chain, someone has forked it, activated the softfork early in it.. zot. you are now fried.
<gmaxwell>
you can't reorg onto the real chain because it's invalid.
<JackH>
right now the "real chain" is via DNS discovery to other nodes, no?
<kanzure>
it's based on rule validation
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
JackH: the real chain is the valid chain with the most work.
<gmaxwell>
but with your suggestion a node would no longer converge to that if it saw a fork with an early activation first.
<JackH>
if a bip9 softfork locks in, and we wait 100 blocks (for example) we can be quite certain that not only will it stay activated, but that it will also be the longest chain. if miners reorg 100 blocks back, it will be bad for them as the nodes would kick them off
<JackH>
100 is just an example, could be 250
<gmaxwell>
no.
<gmaxwell>
when you start up, I might give you a 100 block fork off at block 1 (for example). You don't know any better yet, so you follow it. Later you hear about a better chain from other peers, and you switch to that.
<gmaxwell>
with your suggestion, if my fork activated the softfork earlier than the best chain did, you wouldn't reorg anymore.
kristofferR has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<JackH>
ok I get it now, but this also implies that we never know the "longest" chain, by amount. At some point we must assume miners are not going to be able to reorg, for example 5000 blocks after activation
<kanzure>
length is insufficient, the rule is validity too.
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
JackH: no, because I can fork at 0 make 5000 blocks in a few minutes with a miner. Bitcoin never knows it's on the longest chain but it's always moving towards it.
<gmaxwell>
someone could give you some old fork, but you won't follow it for long...
<gmaxwell>
I think the title of the paper is misleading.
<gmaxwell>
it's not an alternative proof of work scheme, it's a scheme for registering ephemerial identities for sybil resistance.
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
<tuxcanfly>
gmaxwell: I've always wondered, wouldn't sybil resistance make proof of work superflous? just distributed mining randomly across identified parties
<tuxcanfly>
*distribute mining rewards
<gmaxwell>
if you can strongly assume 2/3rds are honest, and people don't join and leave.
<gmaxwell>
in that paper their notion of sybil resistance is very limited. :P
contrapumpkin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
The thing to compare this work to is "proof of idle".
<tuxcanfly>
gotta read the paper. proof of idle seems interesting.
<gmaxwell>
the idea of the paper appears to be everyone generates a public key. Then node join the network by doing a large amount of POW based on the network state. They show people the work and get added to a list of nodes.
<gmaxwell>
then at random times, the system (which consists of members registered via the prior process) demands everyone do POW and return responses ASAP. Anyone who doesn't return 'in time' is banned from the system and must make a new identity to rejoin.
<gmaxwell>
so this lets nodes spend most of their time not working, but its inherently online... it doesn't build up a hard to forge history.
<kanzure>
i would like to see more thought put into online/interactive protocols, in general. or some work towards showing limits to what more interaction can enable. (for example: getting all UTXO owners to sign off on state updates)
<tuxcanfly>
gmaxwell: wouldn't the system members game it because they know when the POW demand goes out, but others don't
<tuxcanfly>
I guess unless you trust all system members
<gmaxwell>
tuxcanfly: unclear to me, I don't understand how they make their distributed beacon. I just read it very quickly (under 2 minutes) just to determine what the heck general area they were working on. :)
<tuxcanfly>
gmaxwell: did you have a different concept for proof of idle in your mind?
<gmaxwell>
I don't recall how adiabat's scheme beaconed either. :)
<gmaxwell>
feel free to go read the paper if the subject interests you! I just skimmed to figure out wtf it was, because the title and abstract were pretty opaque to me.
<tuxcanfly>
I thought you were referring to the general notion of proving that nodes have been in the network for X time
<tuxcanfly>
gotcha
<gmaxwell>
I'm not going to read it carefully because I'm not currently super interested in that sort of thing. :)
<gmaxwell>
(but I'll remember it and will go back to it if I need a scheme like that).
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: 'online and interactive' as distinct from not starts smelling like synch. network assumptions, which tend to not hold up that well in the real world.
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<kanzure>
what if you allow for long delay?
<gmaxwell>
How long is long enough?
<kanzure>
i've been stuck on the block content partial withholding problem lately. everything seems to boil down to nodes needing to rapidly reject a block with partial unknown content, otherwise you build on top of possible unobserved fraud.
JackH has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
BashCo has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
BashCo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Murch has joined #bitcoin-wizards
`mike` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
prime has joined #bitcoin-wizards
prime is now known as Guest94874
BashCo has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
prime__ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
veleiro has joined #bitcoin-wizards
veleiro has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
daszorz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
BashCo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ociule has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adiabat>
hey - I never got super far into the beacon process for proof of idle but on a 1 to many basis it seems straightforward
<adiabat>
a user presents a challenge, which is an (invalid but asic-compatible) 80 byte header
<adiabat>
and gives everyone ~30 sec or so to work on it and respond with a bunch of their best nonces (to reduce variance and get a good estimate of the relative power of the participants)
<adiabat>
then you can make some 'smart contracts' which are two spends with conflicting locktimes (height vs unix time)
<betawaffle>
the nonce isn't big enough for 30 seconds :P
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<adiabat>
yeah not anymore :)
<adiabat>
so would have to do somehting more like blocktemplate
<adiabat>
the basic idea from it was "gee, if miners could collude/cooperate even just a bit, they could save a lot of electricity huh."
<adiabat>
I'm less optimistic (if that's the best term) about the idea than I was 3 years ago -- it seems capex outweighs opex for mining by a lot, even years later
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adiabat>
but I do think the double spend w/ conflicting locktime is pretty fun & could be used to bet on difficulty and stuff :)
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
veleiro has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
veleiro has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
`mike` has quit [Quit: Page closed]
str4d has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<mryandao>
< sipa> you can start from the previous hash, "subtract" the spent utxo's from it, "add" the created utxo's to