> What do you think a big-integer division by a word-sized divisor *is*?
> Obviously rolling your own is always an option. Are you just saying that
> Base58 encoding and decoding is easier than Shamir's Secret Sharing because
> the divisors are small?
Well, yes, to be fair, in fact it is. The
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 11/04/14 00:15, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> Checkpoints will go away, eventually.
> Why?. The points in the forum thread seem pretty sensible.
Because with headers first synchronization the major problems that
they solve— e.g. block flooding D
On 11/04/14 00:15, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Checkpoints will go away, eventually.
Why?. The points in the forum thread seem pretty sensible.
--
Jesús Cea Avión _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/
Twitter:
Checkpoints will go away, eventually.
On 04/10/2014 02:34 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 10/04/14 18:59, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> It's important to
>> note that this is a strict reduction in security: we're now trusting
>> that the longest chain (with most proof of work) commits to a valid
>> UTXO set (
On 10/04/14 18:59, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> It's important to
> note that this is a strict reduction in security: we're now trusting
> that the longest chain (with most proof of work) commits to a valid
> UTXO set (at some point in the past).
AFAIK, current bitcoin code code already set blockchain c
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Tier Nolan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Pieter Wuille
> wrote:
>>
>> If you trust hashrate for determining which UTXO set is valid, a 51%
>> attack becomes worse in that you can be made to believe a version of
>> history which is in fact invalid.
>
>
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> If you trust hashrate for determining which UTXO set is valid, a 51%
> attack becomes worse in that you can be made to believe a version of
> history which is in fact invalid.
>
If there are invalidation proofs, then this isn't strictly true
You took the quote out of context:
"a full node can copy the chain state from someone else, and check that
its hash matches what the block chain commits to. It's important to
note that this is a strict reduction in security: we're now trusting
that the longest chain (with most proof of work) commi
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Paul Rabahy wrote:
> Please let me know if I have missed something.
A 51% attack can make you believe you were paid, while you weren't.
Full node security right now validates everything - there is no way
you can ever be made to believe something invalid. The only
You say UTXO commitments is "a strict reduction in security". If UTXO
commitments were rolled in as a soft fork, I do not see any new attacks
that could happen to a person trusting the committed UTXO + any remaining
blocks to catch up to the head.
I would imagine the soft fork to proceed similar t
Error correction is an interesting suggestion.
If there was 1 nodes and each stored 0.1% of the blocks, at random,
then the odds of a block not being stored is 45 in a million.
Blocks are stored on average 10 times, so there is already reasonable
redundancy.
With 1 million blocks, 45 would b
> At this point, I don't think what you are doing is even colored coins
> anymore. You might want to look into Counterparty or Mastercoin.
>
Nope, it's still colored coins. The difference between colored coin model
and Mastercoin model is that colored coins are linked to transaction
outputs, while
Ok I think I've got a good understanding of where we're at now. I can
promise that the next person to waste your time in 30 days will not be me.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see a community that doesn't kickban newcomers
and takes the time to explain (re-explain) concepts.
Hoping to add *beneficial
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Brian Hoffman wrote:
> Looks like only about ~30% disk space savings so I see your point. Is there
> a critical reason why blocks couldn't be formed into "superblocks" that are
> chained together and nodes could serve a specific superblock, which could be
> pieced
On 04/10/2014 05:19 AM, Flavien Charlon wrote:
> By the way, padding doesn't solve the issue entirely (issuing 10 billion
> shares sill takes you 100 BTC, even with padding and 1 satoshi = 1
> share), so I am going for the solution where the asset quantity of every
> output is explicitly encoded in
Okay...will let myself out now ;P
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Ricardo Filipe
wrote:
> that's what blockchain pruning is all about :)
>
> 2014-04-10 17:47 GMT+01:00 Brian Hoffman :
> > Looks like only about ~30% disk space savings so I see your point. Is
> there
> > a critical reason why bl
that's what blockchain pruning is all about :)
2014-04-10 17:47 GMT+01:00 Brian Hoffman :
> Looks like only about ~30% disk space savings so I see your point. Is there
> a critical reason why blocks couldn't be formed into "superblocks" that are
> chained together and nodes could serve a specific
anyway, any kind of compression that comes to the blockchain is
orthogonal to pruning.
I agree that you will probably want some kind of replication on more
recent nodes than on older ones. However, nodes with older blocks
don't need to be "static", get the block distribution algorithm to
sort it o
Looks like only about ~30% disk space savings so I see your point. Is there
a critical reason why blocks couldn't be formed into "superblocks" that are
chained together and nodes could serve a specific superblock, which could
be pieced together from different nodes to get the full blockchain? This
Suggestions always welcome!
The main problem with this is that the block chain is mostly random bytes
(hashes, keys) so it doesn't compress that well. It compresses a bit, but
not enough to change the fundamental physics.
However, that does not mean the entire chain has to be stored on expensive
This is probably just noise, but what if nodes could compress and store
earlier transaction sets (archive sets) and serve them up conditionally. So
if there were let's say 100 archive sets of (10,000 blocks) you might have
5 open at any time when you're an active archive node while the others sit
o
By deciding to use a decentralized network to hold your assets, it may
make more sense to emit less shares. Two billion shares backed by
coloured coins makes less sense than a more conservative number, like
10,000. That costs a negligible amount of money, at least until the day
when Bitcoin takes o
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> But sure I could see a fixed range as also being a useful contribution
> though I'm struggling to figure out what set of constraints would
> leave a node without following the consensus? Obviously it has
> bandwidth if you're expecting t
Thanks for the valuable feedback. I see there is a strong concern with
requiring a large BTC capital for issuing coloring coins, so I am now in
the process of modifying the specification to address that. I will post an
update when this is finished.
By the way, padding doesn't solve the issue entir
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Wladimir wrote:
> Just wondering: Would there be a use for a [static] node that, say, always
> serves only the first 10 blocks? Or, even, a static range like block
> 10 - 20?
The last time we discussed this sipa collected data based on how often
blocks
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Chain pruning is probably a separate thread, changing subject.
>
>
>> Reason is that the actual blocks available are likely to change
>> frequently (if
>> you keep the last week of blocks
>
>
> I doubt anyone would specify blocks to keep in ter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10 April 2014 07:50:55 GMT-04:00, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>(Just be glad I'm not suggesting coding the entire blockchain with an
>error correcting code so that it doesn't matter which subset you're
>holding)
I forgot to ask last night: if you d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10 April 2014 07:45:16 GMT-04:00, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>
>> Oh yeah, credit goes to Mike Hearn for the payment channels, and if
>I'm
>> correct, for the hub concept as well.
>>
>
>Actually, the design is from Satoshi and Matt did most of the
>imp
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> There were earlier discussions.
On this list.
> The two ideas were either using one or a few service bits to indicate
> availability of blocks, or to extend addr messages with some flags to
> indicate this information.
>
> I wonder whether
>
> Oh yeah, credit goes to Mike Hearn for the payment channels, and if I'm
> correct, for the hub concept as well.
>
Actually, the design is from Satoshi and Matt did most of the
implementation work last year during a Google internship. Though I ended up
doing a lot of work on it too. We actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10 April 2014 07:32:44 GMT-04:00, Pieter Wuille
wrote:
>There were earlier discussions.
>
>The two ideas were either using one or a few service bits to indicate
>availability of blocks, or to extend addr messages with some flags to
>indicate t
Chain pruning is probably a separate thread, changing subject.
> Reason is that the actual blocks available are likely to change frequently
> (if
> you keep the last week of blocks
I doubt anyone would specify blocks to keep in terms of time. More likely
it'd be in terms of megabytes, as that's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10 April 2014 06:44:32 GMT-04:00, Tamas Blummer
wrote:
>Thanks, Peter and you convinced me. I run away with a thought.
>
>It’d be great to find a spot to deploy payment channels, but I agree
>this is not it.
No problem!
I'm sure we'll see pa
There were earlier discussions.
The two ideas were either using one or a few service bits to indicate
availability of blocks, or to extend addr messages with some flags to
indicate this information.
I wonder whether we can't have a hybrid: bits to indicate general
degree of availability of blocks
>
> What would this involve?
>
> Do you know of any previous work towards this?
>
Chain pruning is a fairly complicated project, partly because it spans
codebases. For instance if you try and implement it *just* by changing
Bitcoin Core, you will break all the SPV clients based on bitcoinj (i.e.
a
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> Serving headers should be default but storing and serving full blocks
> configurable to ranges, so people can tailor to their bandwith and space
> available.
>
I do agree that it is important.
This does require changes to the P2P protocol,
Thanks, Peter and you convinced me. I run away with a thought.
It’d be great to find a spot to deploy payment channels, but I agree this is
not it.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 10.04.2014, at 12:40, Mike Hearn wrote:
> 1) There is no catch 22 as there are plenty of ways getting bit
>
> 1) There is no catch 22 as there are plenty of ways getting bitcoin
> without bootstrapping a full node.
>
I think I maybe wasn't clear. To spend coins you need transaction data.
Today, the dominant model is that people get that data by scanning the
block chain. If you can obtain the transacti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10 April 2014 05:17:28 GMT-04:00, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>
>> I find it is odd that we who hold the key to instant machine to
>machine
>> micro payments do not use it to incentivise committing resources to
>the
>> network.
>>
>
>It's not a new idea
I know the idea is not new. Just bringing it up to emphasize that if we don’t
use it how could we expect other networks using it.
Machine to machine micro payments could become the killer application for
Bitcoin.
1) There is no catch 22 as there are plenty of ways getting bitcoin without
bootst
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
But we
>have
>to be realistic. Desktop tower machines that are always on are dying
>and
>will not be coming back. Not a single person I know uses them anymore,
>they
>have been wiped out in favour of laptops. This is why, given the tiny
>size
>of
>
> I find it is odd that we who hold the key to instant machine to machine
> micro payments do not use it to incentivise committing resources to the
> network.
>
It's not a new idea, obviously, but there are some practical consequences:
1) To pay a node for serving, you have to have bitcoins. To
You ask why people would install this ?
I find it is odd that we who hold the key to instant machine to machine micro
payments do not use it to incentivise committing resources to the network.
What about serving archive blocks to peers paying for it ?
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 10.
It's an optimisation problem. Home environments are much more hostile than
servers are due to things like virus scanners, wildly varying memory
pressure as apps are started and shut down, highly asymmetrical upstream
versus downstream bandwidth, complicated nat setups, people who only use
laptops
44 matches
Mail list logo
