wumpus changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is 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
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
bi_fa_fu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bi_fa_fu has quit [Client Quit]
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
PsychoticBoy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
PsychoticBoy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kmels has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mengine has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Dr-G2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dr-G has quit [Disconnected by services]
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
King_Rex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<gmaxwell>
If a link to that hasn't already been shared.
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
metamarc has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
metamarc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bedeho has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
afk11 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
kang_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x_ has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
King_Rex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
SDCDev has joined #bitcoin-wizards
drwin has quit [Read error: No route to host]
drwin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kang_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
hearn has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
kang_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mjerr has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
p15_ has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
vmatekol_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
CodeShark_ has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
melvster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
"Due to script’s operation count limitations, this approach works in theory up to a 1-of-4,294,967,296 multisig, although the tree becomes annoyingly large to construct at that point. Up to 1-of-1,000,000 should be doable, though."
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
melvster has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
melvster1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ASTP001 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AlphaTech has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
copumpkin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AlphaTech has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
AlphaTech has quit [Changing host]
AlphaTech has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
binaryatrocity_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
binaryatrocity_ is now known as binaryatrocity
binaryatrocity has quit [Changing host]
binaryatrocity has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hearn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quanttek has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kang_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
kang_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kang_ has quit [Quit: Page closed]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
p15x_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
hearn has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
hearn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Burrito has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster1 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
hearn has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
hearn_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
[kerneloops] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hearn_ is now known as hearn
melvster1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
nwilcox has quit [Quit: leaving]
hearn has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
afk11 has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
hearn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ASTP001 has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
[kerneloops] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Buh-byes"]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<runeks>
Is there any form of ordering for the transactions in a block? I mean, can a transaction later in the list of transactions be redeemed by a transaction earlier in the list? I assume so, but I want to know.
<runeks>
I'm talking within a single block.
<Taek>
That's a #bitcoin-dev (maybe even #bitcoin) question
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
antgreen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ASTP001 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chester` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bedeho has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<runeks>
Ok
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sturles has quit [Quit: Rebooting server..]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
hearn has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
rubensayshi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Starduster_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
coryfields_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Starduster has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Luke-Jr has quit [Excess Flood]
coryfields has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
prosodyContext is now known as misalias
NLNico has quit [Quit: Leaving]
c0rw1n has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheDarkLord has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ASTP001 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
runeks: the block creates a total order, and no a later transaction cannot be redeemed by an earlier one.
<gmaxwell>
(and taek was right about #bitcoin :) )
<runeks>
gmaxwell: thanks. Gmaxwell has spoken, and I know consider the matter settled :)
<runeks>
*now
<gmaxwell>
(this prevens having forcing the verifier to sort the transactions, or having cycles, etc.)
<runeks>
Yeah it totally makes sense. Forced intra-block ordering by txid would also make sense. Respecting redemption order, of course.
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
<nwilcox>
runeks: When you say forcing ordering by txid (also constrained by redemption order), are you imagining a canonicalization that strives to ensure a given set of txns can only be encoded one way into a valid block?
<runeks>
nwilcox: I guess so, yes.
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has quit [Client Quit]
hearn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw1n has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
mjerr has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Guyver2 has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
fuc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gill3s has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
fuc is now known as mrhodl
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrhodl is now known as MrHodl
CodeShark has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Dizzle has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chester` has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Dizzle has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<gmaxwell>
wrt those visulizations, they only work for a small number of dimensions, and there are many voting systems where you can't get the really interesting cases with only a few dimenisons. (e.g. need at least 5 candidates and 11 voters to form a preference cycle in some cases.
<gmaxwell>
pretty cool though.
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
antgreen has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
b-itcoinssg has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
MrHodl has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
isis has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
TheDarkLord has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
bigreddmachine has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MrHodl has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MrHodl has quit [Client Quit]
p15x has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
tripleslash has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
CodeShark_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kangkang has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kangkang has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
kangkang has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kangkang has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
kang_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
gmaxwell: if anything it just screams "voting is weird don't do it" to me :-/
<Adlai>
last question from tonight's panel (on the whos whys and wtfs of the silverware drama) was indeed about governance... too bad screaming from the back row "mining incentives are all the governance you'll ever need" would've been a tad impolite
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: yea, blame the brainwashing in modern democracies. "Voting" (as if there was only one kind) is presentual as an unblemished univeral solution to common decision problems. People do so fully aware of the many limitations, because voting has good social satability properties (it has a very high ratio of actual disenfranchisement to feeling of power)
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
wouldn't it be more useful to have people obsessed with ballot creation more than they are obsessed with voting?
<gmaxwell>
People are concerned with that. They're also concerned with control of the voter rolls.
Mably has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<Adlai>
that's not fair, some people are better at ballot creation (cleaner/faster handwriting?) than others
<Adlai>
getting fairness out of the way makes the problem much easier, because it absolves the need for democracy theater
<kang_>
Democratic voting is broken in that sense. On a free knowledge forum, 'to the moon' memes are sure to get more votes than some in-depth posts due to the span of direct individual influence. But in a ballot, each upvote is money. This can be solved to an extent by weighted importance of votes. Like each science subreddit vote should get more importance than justin bieber subreddit vote, but now the problem is who decides what
<Adlai>
kang_: how do you allocate potential-upvotes... IPs? cookies? PGP WoT?Hashcash? bitcoin burning? birth certificates?
<gmaxwell>
kang_: yes, thats been a principle in some of the closed loop control proposals-- that any 'vote' should have a cost.
<kang_>
For now people are considering miner's votes as real important, whereas their rationality, aligned by inbuilt economic incentive, is in the near long-term. Miner dont care if bitcoin dies after 2 years.
<gmaxwell>
Unfrotunately giving things a cost also means that money is power. :(
<Adlai>
miners still care that they'll be able to sell their vote-receipts
<Adlai>
this requires bitcoin to maintain value for at least a few... hours?
* Adlai
suddenly realizes why coinbases should not be spendable right away
<belcher>
long enough to amortize their equipment
<Adlai>
inb4 coinbase spendability hardfork >_<
<c0rw1n>
um they need to cash out and not crash the rate while doing it
<Adlai>
c0rw1n: yes, "bitcoin to maintain value" is a statement about market liquidity
<kang_>
gmaxwell: I am not talking about cost to voting in proportion to importance of voter, but in proportion to cost of importance of the subject.
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
kang_: one problem is that if you make voting more expensive you exacerbate power imbalances (especially when the vote is over a source of that imbalance), and you also discourage the participation from people without a vested monetary interest.
<gmaxwell>
For example if the vote is to build a coal power plant vs not and have clean, enjoyable air... there is a lot of money behind one side, and the other side is people's hard to value well being, and people who are not as powerful.
<gmaxwell>
Is it right to give the power company more access to the vote?
* Adlai
has yet to see an electorate not as expensive as the buyer is willing to pay
<kang_>
The constitution(satoshi's implementation) is becoming more important than the priciples of the country(satoshi's principle(debatable)).
drwin has quit [Read error: No route to host]
drwin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Adlai>
calling the satoshi client a 'constitution' implies that people still read it...
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
A constutution only has power to the extent that it gets read and understood; there is no tidy comparison. The Bitcoin rules are somewhere between an informal agreement and a law of nature.
mjerr has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<gmaxwell>
They're self-enforcing in a way that a constution isn't; but only if people are running nodes of some kind.
<kang_>
No I am calling '10 minutes' etc parameters as the constitution. Transaction throughput rate is number of blocks per unit time. Can be increased by 1. larger blocks, 2. faster time, 3. Abstraction of transactions. Since 2 is constitution and 3 looks like conflict of interest, for eg sidechains, people think that 1 is the only way
<kang_>
Why is 10 minutes - the parameter more sacred than blocksize the parameter?
<Adlai>
bitcoin's constitution is self-enforcing only to the extend that the effecting network values self-enforcement
<gmaxwell>
No one is going around saying that changing the interblock expected gap will increase the price of bitcoin.
<phantomcircuit>
gmaxwell, im sure there is some fool doing that :/
<kang_>
Changing the interblock time will increase the number of transactions accommodated. Point is both parameters are equally sacred. Also, equally important to the algorithm theoretically. Shorter block time means more forks but larger block times mean a headstart to the miner.
<kanzure>
"sacred"
<nwilcox>
Can anyone recommend an analysis of the issues around turning down interblock target time?
<nwilcox>
I'm mainly interested in orphan rate or vulnerabilities to attacks, and less so in the fact that this changes the realtime rate of monetary base growth...
<kang_>
:) Sacred because touching '10 minutes' is a big no but we assume we are free to play with blocksize, as if it was less imp in the protocol.
<kanzure>
propagation rate, orphaned blocks, various synchronization issues
<gmaxwell>
nwilcox: it increases the base cost for light clients, and below some critical threshold (a multiple of network radius) the network just stops converging (expected reorg length tends to infinity). I don't have a nice closed form analysis but if you run a numerical simulation you see this.
<kanzure>
also the best reference is probably old -wizard logs
<gmaxwell>
10 minutes isn't magic, and maybe 5 minutes would be just as good(?-- esp if scaling blocksize down to match) but below some point the system will go off the rails. In the real world the network radius isn't constant or easily measurable, so its reasonable to be pretty cautious.
<gmaxwell>
There is the ghost paper (and its follow up the original had more problems) that improves the behavior, though at the cost of greatly amplifying selfish mining.
<gmaxwell>
probably the ghost paper is some of the better general analysis, though they ignore a lot of interesting issues (like incentives problems!) and mostly just focus on the system achieving convergence at all.
<nwilcox>
gmaxwell, kanzure: Thanks.
<Adlai>
kang_: sacredness is in the eye of the worshipper. some parametrs (eg potential M0) are much more easily worshipped than others... the effecting network has edges, and you want maximal agreement on altar shape, for maximal network strength
<kanzure>
Adlai: i recommend tabooing the word "sacred" and "altar". it's not a word that conveys much signal.
<nwilcox>
So there's some lower bound region on time that leads to a qualitative state change (eg: failing to ever converge).
<nwilcox>
-and with block size there's probably also an upper bound range.
<gmaxwell>
I don't think any parameter is actually sacred in the eyes of the users. There are suicide pact elements to bitcoin, but ultimately it's not a suicide pact.
* Adlai
was not the first to introduce nuclear vocabulary to the region
<kang_>
Exactly, so both the parameters should esentially let be and rather everyone should try to think how to abstract the transactions so that more can be accommodated in the current shape. One way of abstraction is definitely sidechains, where multiple transactions are abstracted to 2 tx on bitcoin block
<nwilcox>
It's interesting that turning up block size doesn't immediately impact SPV client costs, right?
<Adlai>
nwilcox: assuming a sufficiently-implemented SPV client, sure. but de facto, it increases response time to getutxo and its equivalents
<gmaxwell>
Lets imagine the most 'sacred' parameter, the supply of coins. Now imagine a future 25 years from now where subsidy is very low, and TX fees are not picking up the slack (e.g. fee market has failed or is insufficient) and the security of the system is failing, the network is being reorged by byzantine attackers with generation old hashpower. Security and usability are evaporating. Something must
<gmaxwell>
be done.
<gmaxwell>
With bitcoin's utility failing, saying you now need to pay fees when you haven't the last 10 years may not be a credible argument.
<gmaxwell>
So what do you do?
<gmaxwell>
Do you introduce signed blocks?
<gmaxwell>
Something else that no one has invented yet?
<Adlai>
wait for more confirmations?
<Adlai>
ie, slow down your own use of the network, without changing its basic function
<gmaxwell>
Adlai: if they have a localized majority no amount of wait is safe.
<gmaxwell>
You could wait 100 blocks and poof. reorged.
<gmaxwell>
or they could constantly reorg the tip so you make no progress.
<Adlai>
guess #2: switch PoW, preferably to one that doubles as utxo queries
<gmaxwell>
There is no promise that these attacks will be expensive-- we see altcoins attacked like this all the time today.
<Adlai>
utxo queries cost, uh, something!
<gmaxwell>
Adlai: but end up with the same situation because the fundimentals haven't changed.
<nwilcox>
Gotta run, but wish I could keep lurking...
nwilcox has quit [Quit: leaving]
<kanzure>
nwilcox == iwilcox?
<gmaxwell>
Another option is to implement 0.1% inflation to subsidize security ongoing. This is a tax on coins at rest, maybe even lost coins.
<kanzure>
been confused about this
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: no.
<kanzure>
ah! interesting.
<kanzure>
this might explain a few things....
<Adlai>
another possibility is that by the time this happens, "bitcoin-og" will have lost market share due to negative feedback of lost market share and lost PoW-share...
<Adlai>
ie, for the benefit of a wholly distinct consensus network
<gmaxwell>
Adlai: and if not for the inability to actually achieve a true fixed rate, I would have even argued that it would have been a good initial parameter of the system.
<kang_>
Ya I had read about this on your alt-ideas page
<Adlai>
so this becomes a question of "should consensus networks doubling as censorship-free broadcast networks tripling as settlement layers incentivize scroogeiness?"
<Adlai>
because once you have any nonzero protocol inflation, you have nonzero spending incentive
<kanzure>
perhaps lightning fees could be used to fund mining in that hypothetical miners-all-died-yo scenario
* Adlai
suspects the best we can do, today, is "insufficient data for meaningful answer"
<kanzure>
(for rebootstrapping)
* Adlai
waits for the day when half the opportunity cost of mining is covered by running a channel rebalancer
<Adlai>
(with breath unbaited)
p15 has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<kang_>
Just after 4-5 halvenings the network would be producing 0.78 coins per block. Whatever situation you are imagining in 25 years w.r.t mining hashrate, will happen much before that. The market will take care of itself to either adjust the price so that those coins remain of same or more "value" as 25 coins of today OR the market kills the price totally, which requires political initiative to happen because raational spenders
* Adlai
waits for the arrival of once-we-fork multipools for sha256d, breath *baited*
TheDarkLord has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Adlai>
the beautiful thing about which is plausible deniability for violent fork-triggering. "we only wanted to test on production!"