Damian Gomez [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08 📝 Original message:Well zombie txns aside, I ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08
📝 Original message:Well zombie txns aside, I expect this to be resolved w/ a client side
implementation using a Merkle-Winternitz OTS in order to prevent the loss
of fee structure theougth the implementation of a this security hash that
eill alloow for a one-wya transaction to conitnue, according to the TESLA
protocol.

We can then tally what is needed to compute tteh number of bit desginated
for teh completion og the client-side signature if discussin the
construcitons of a a DH key (instead of the BIP X509 protocol)





On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:08 PM, <
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
> bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bitcoin-development-owner at lists.sourceforge.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)
> 2. Softfork signaling improvements (Douglas Roark)
> 3. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)
> 4. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) (Damian Gomez)
> 5. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org>
> To: Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com>
> Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:55:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
> The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no
> longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and
> any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated.
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Replace by fee is what I was referencing. End-users interpret the old
>> transaction as expired. Hence the nomenclature. An alternative is a new
>> feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction
>> after a specific time. But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain
>>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Douglas Roark <doug at bitcoinarmory.com>
> To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:27:26 -0400
> Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Softfork signaling improvements
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hello. I've seen Greg make a couple of posts online
> (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033396.msg11155302#msg11155302
> is one such example) where he has mentioned that Pieter has a new
> proposal for allowing multiple softforks to be deployed at the same
> time. As discussed in the thread I linked, the idea seems simple
> enough. Still, I'm curious if the actual proposal has been posted
> anywhere. I spent a few minutes searching the usual suspects (this
> mailing list, Reddit, Bitcointalk, IRC logs, BIPs) and can't find
> anything.
>
> Thanks.
>
> - ---
> Douglas Roark
> Senior Developer
> Armory Technologies, Inc.
> doug at bitcoinarmory.com
> PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVTQ4eAAoJEGybVGGSrcDX8eMQAOQiDA7an+qZBqDfVIwEzY2C
> SxOVxswwxAyTtZNM/Nm+8MTq77hF8+3j/C3bUbDW6wCu4QxBYA/uiCGTf44dj6WX
> 7aiXg1o9C4LfPcuUngcMI0H5ixOUxnbqUdmpNdoIvy4did2dVs9fAmOPEoSVUm72
> 6dMLGrtlPN0jcLX6pJd12Dy3laKxd0AP72wi6SivH6i8v8rLb940EuBS3hIkuZG0
> vnR5MXMIEd0rkWesr8hn6oTs/k8t4zgts7cgIrA7rU3wJq0qaHBa8uASUxwHKDjD
> KmDwaigvOGN6XqitqokCUlqjoxvwpimCjb3Uv5Pkxn8+dwue9F/IggRXUSuifJRn
> UEZT2F8fwhiluldz3sRaNtLOpCoKfPC+YYv7kvGySgqagtNJFHoFhbeQM0S3yjRn
> Ceh1xK9sOjrxw/my0jwpjJkqlhvQtVG15OsNWDzZ+eWa56kghnSgLkFO+T4G6IxB
> EUOcAYjJkLbg5ssjgyhvDOvGqft+2e4MNlB01e1ZQr4whQH4TdRkd66A4WDNB+0g
> LBqVhAc2C8L3g046mhZmC33SuOSxxm8shlxZvYLHU2HrnUFg9NkkXi1Ub7agMSck
> TTkLbMx17AvOXkKH0v1L20kWoWAp9LfRGdD+qnY8svJkaUuVtgDurpcwEk40WwEZ
> caYBw+8bdLpKZwqbA1DL
> =ayhE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org>
> To: "Raystonn ." <raystonn at hotmail.com>
> Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:40:50 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
> Transactions don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can
> periodically choose to release an already created transaction with a higher
> fee. This requires replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however.
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a proposal for wallets such as yours. How about creating all
>> transactions with an expiration time starting with a low fee, then
>> replacing with new transactions that have a higher fee as time passes.
>> Users can pick the fee curve they desire based on the transaction priority
>> they want to advertise to the network. Users set the priority in the
>> wallet, and the wallet software translates it to a specific fee curve used
>> in the series of expiring transactions. In this manner, transactions are
>> never left hanging for days, and probably not even for hours.
>>
>> -Raystonn
>> On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine <voisine at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As the author of a popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support
>> of the Gavin's 20Mb block proposal.
>>
>> The best argument I've heard against raising the limit is that we need
>> fee pressure. I agree that fee pressure is the right way to economize on
>> scarce resources. Placing hard limits on block size however is an
>> incredibly disruptive way to go about this, and will severely negatively
>> impact users' experience.
>>
>> When users pay too low a fee, they should:
>>
>> 1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate.
>>
>> 2) If the fee lower than it should be but not terminal, they should see
>> degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, but eventual success.
>> This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future.
>>
>> The worst of all worlds would be to have transactions propagate, hang in
>> limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most important scenario to
>> avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the simplest way to
>> avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate future.
>>
>> We can play around with improved transaction selection for blocks and
>> encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees and create fee
>> pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection so low fee
>> transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This would be the
>> conservative low risk approach.
>>
>> Aaron Voisine
>> co-founder and CEO
>> breadwallet.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Damian Gomez <dgomez1092 at gmail.com>
> To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:04:10 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase (Raystonn)
> Hello,
>
> I was reading some of the thread but can't say I read the entire thing.
>
> I think that it is realistic to cinsider a nlock sixe of 20MB for any
> block txn to occur. THis is an enormous amount of data (relatively for a
> netwkrk) in which the avergage rate of 10tps over 10 miniutes would allow
> for fewasible transformation of data at this curent point in time.
>
> Though I do not see what extra hash information would be stored in the
> overall ecosystem as we begin to describe what the scripts that are
> atacrhed tp the blockchain would carry,
>
> I'd therefore think that for the remainder of this year that it is
> possible to have a block chain within 200 - 300 bytes that is more
> charatereistic of some feasible attempts at attaching nuanced data in order
> to keep propliifc the blockchain but have these identifiers be integral
> OPSIg of the the entiore block. THe reasoning behind this has to do with
> encryption standards that can be added toe a chain such as th DH algoritnm
> keys that would allow for a higher integrity level withinin the system as
> it is. Cutrent;y tyh prootocl oomnly controls for the amount of
> transactions through if TxnOut script and the publin key coming form teh
> lcoation of the proof-of-work. Form this then I think that a rate of higher
> than then current standard of 92bytes allows for GPUS ie CUDA to perfirm
> its standard operations of 1216 flops in rde rto mechanize a new
> personal identity within the chain that also attaches an encrypted instance
> of a further categorical variable that we can prsribved to it.
>
> I think with the current BIP7 prootclol for transactions there is an area
> of vulnerability for man-in-the-middle attacks upon request of bitcin to
> any merchant as is. It would contraidct the security of the bitcoin if it
> was intereceptefd iand not allowed to reach tthe payment network or if the
> hash was reveresed in orfr to change the value it had. Therefore the
> current best fit block size today is between 200 - 300 bytws (depending on
> how exciteed we get)
>
>
>
> Thanks for letting me join the conversation
> I welcomes any vhalleneged and will reply with more research as i figure
> out what problems are revealed in my current formation of thoughts (sorry
> for the errors but i am just trying to move forward ---> THE DELRERT KEY
> LITERALLY PREVENTS IT )
>
>
> _Damian
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com>
> To: Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org>
> Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:01:28 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
>
> Replace by fee is the better approach. It will ultimately replace zombie
> transactions (due to insufficient fee) with potentially much higher fees as
> the feature takes hold in wallets throughout the network, and fee
> competition increases. However, this does not fix the problem of low tps.
> In fact, as blocks fill it could make the problem worse. This feature
> means more transactions after all. So I would expect huge fee spikes, or a
> return to zombie transactions if fee caps are implemented by wallets.
>
> -Raystonn
> On 8 May 2015 1:55 pm, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org> wrote:
>
> The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no
> longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and
> any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated.
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Replace by fee is what I was referencing. End-users interpret the old
> transaction as expired. Hence the nomenclature. An alternative is a new
> feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction
> after a specific time. But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/dbf018a4/attachment.html>;