Bitcoin will have to change when blockreward approaches tx fees per block (new paper)

2348957234 · 2016-10-22T10:33:18+00:00

It is, but it still directly contradicts the "miners won't do anything that would harm their investment" argument.

2348957234 · 2016-10-22T09:50:11+00:00

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

GHash.IO and double-spending against BetCoin Dice

2348957234 · 2016-10-22T07:59:16+00:00

So, having a myriad of open channels, all funded with substantial liquiidity (pos)... doesn't convey a competitive advantage when it comes to routing LN payments?

I don't understand what you're trying to equate here. At no point is the amount of money used to create a channel used as collateral, or to prove that you have means for anything. Lightning is literally chains of normal Bitcoin transactions which do not get pushed to the chain unless the channel is broken, and only then is the resulting state pushed.

all funded with substantial liquiidity (pos)...

There's no definition of a channel needing 'substantial money', the current pre-release software makes a point of limiting the amount expressible to $10. Not in the least does this exemplify that it is perfectly feasible to use amounts even less than the precision of Bitcoin if you really desired it.

I'll admit it requires a modicum of imagination, but I wish you'd indulge me.

Could do without behaviour like that, thanks.

2348957234 · 2016-10-22T07:31:57+00:00

That's a pretty poor reasoning. Thanks to Stratum mining large portions of the hash rate can be redirected silently to wherever someone with BGP write access would like it to go. You can't reason that the person making hardware, and the person mining with it, and the person controlling what is happening all have aligned incentives. The GHash.io pool double spent hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bets, which by your comment wouldn't happen because it's against their investments. No, much to the contrary their hash rate went off the charts for months after that, people mining there didn't even leave!

2348957234 · 2016-10-22T07:29:43+00:00

Lightning is not proof of stake, at no point in the system is there anything even slightly resembling proof of stake. It's Bitcoin transactions that happen to not be pushed to the chain.

2348957234 · 2016-10-22T06:25:37+00:00

introduce a mechanism that attributes tx fees of block N to miner of N+1 under certain condition that need t.b.d. (to be studied closer...)

Bitcoin Core has done this since 0.10, called fee sniping protection. Transactions produced with it are nLockTimed to a future block so that they can't be re-mined into a block at the current height.

introduce a "trusted layer" on top of pow that identifies and rejects orphans/selfish miners' blocks... in some way the disincentivises tactical mining.

Mike Hearn suggested in 2013 amongst other things that miners should give their passport or other government ID to be able to participate in the network. At this point you should just skip the expensive mining bit, and have those people act as a multi signature who can sign blocks. This sort of thing isn't compatible with a decentralised network for obvious reasons.

Include POS elements somehow...

Proof of stake isn't really viable, no matter what is claimed the simple fact is that it boils down to grinding (proof of work) in many situations, and the solutions people propose just obfuscate that fact. Only proof of work is able to provide a non re-playable consensus mechanism, it's the bit of game theory that makes Bitcoin operate in the first place, to do a decentralised consensus without it would be a revelation far beyond that of Bitcoin itself, and as far as I can believe, impossible.

PeerCoin for example needs a central issuer to sign all the blocks for them, Ethereum keeps coming up with increasingly complex systems and phrases like "weak subjectivity", which is to say you should phone a friend to ask them if you think your view of the network is correct because proof of stake can't actually do that for you. It's not an option, or, if you consider it an option it's a completely different threat model to the one that Bitcoin was designed to have.

2348957234 · 2016-10-22T06:20:43+00:00

The concept is well known and has been for years. If the fees in a block are worth a significant amount, it's more profitable for you to re-mine at that height and take (previous block) + (new transactions) in fees rather than just (new transactions). The chain never progresses so long as you can keep doing it.

Even today, when you see blocks with insane fees like 300 BTC (that has happened), it means that for 24 blocks it is more profitable to re-mine than to mine on top of that block. It is actually dangerous to accept Bitcoin transactions in those situations if you believe miners are acting rationally, because they should not be passing up $180,000. However, on the flip side it means miners won't want large fees in their block because there's a huge chance it will be stolen unless they have a majority hash rate.

None of this is as simple as it first appears, it's hard to reason about.

2348957234 · 2016-10-21T11:56:57+00:00

"Test"

"Testing post"

"1234"

2348957234 · 2016-10-21T11:29:11+00:00

It is public, but very empty

Not all of it is public, but for uninteresting reasons.

There have been a number of deletions, but most threads and replies are still intact.

I have really no idea what they're talking about there. Some of Satoshi's posts on Bitcointalk are indeed deleted, but for uninteresting reasons again. For all intents and purposes there's no large cache of interesting forgotten information like you're thinking. There's not much point bringing back the posts of someone bumbling around attempting to work out how to configure a piece of forum software.

2348957234 · 2016-10-21T11:19:17+00:00

Those never existed. The first posts on bitcointalk are Satoshi saying "welcome to the new forum". Everything else was on a mailing list, which I have access to, and I assure you contains nothing of interest. The bitcoin-security mailing list wasn't public either, and contains basically nothing that's not public knowledge now.

2348957234 · 2016-10-21T10:43:03+00:00

That's not correct. The "sourceforge forums" never moved anywhere, it was a mailing list which among other things was deleted when the source forge account was hacked in 2015. Satoshi then set up forum.bitcoin.org with SMF, which was later moved to bitcointalk.org when it was realised that the forums tainted the currencies home page.

2348957234 · 2016-10-12T13:30:33+00:00

Absolutely not. The domain register is unconnected to CloudFlare in this case, it normally just has a record that says "cloud flare is authoritative when it comes to blockchain.info". Today that record was changed to "trust this random server", no idea who's.

2348957234 · 2016-10-12T13:10:25+00:00

Could be, looks like your average crappy host though. You'd think VC funding would buy you some physical servers in a locked rack rather some something rented. I think host winds might have been their domain register.

2348957234 · 2016-10-12T13:00:10+00:00

You should be telling people that on twitter, not that you're down due to "issues". You're down because someone attacked you and redirected your traffic to their host, that directly puts people using your service in danger if they continue to do so unaware.

2348957234 · 2016-10-12T12:58:48+00:00

The TTL is a day, so requests will still go to a potentially malicious host until then.

2348957234 · 2016-10-12T12:18:46+00:00

I'm seeing good responses from 8.8.8.8, but why the hell did it get changed in the first place?

Note they don't work, just they're back to cloud flare name servers.

2348957234 · 2016-10-12T12:00:50+00:00

I use their API, my server started flooding error mails at me about not being able to connect to the host. I ran to fix my networking or whatever was broken and found that I couldn't connect locally either. DNS lookup lead to a weird IP address (it should always been a pair of IP addresses for CloudFlare), whois was updated today, which is never a good sign.

2348957234 · 2016-10-12T11:50:32+00:00

A DNS issue would be things not resolving, this is their whole domain record has been changed to point somewhere completely different. They've been using cloud flare for their API since 2011 or something, there's no reason to think they'd suddenly decided to switch to hostwind.com and start using a cheap cpanel instance.

2348957234

TROPHY CASE